title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  6 October 2005  in Case C-204/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 17 and 19 of the Sixth VAT Directive — Subsidies — Limitation of the right to deduct)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 6 October 2005
   in Case C-204/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 17 and 19 of the Sixth VAT Directive - Subsidies - Limitation of the right to deduct)
   (2005/C 296/01)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-204/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Traversa and L. Lozano Palacios) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 14 May 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by providing for a deductible proportion of value added tax for taxable persons who carry out only taxable transactions, and by laying down a special rule which limits the right to deduct VAT on the purchase of goods and services which are subsidised, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law, and, in particular, Articles 17(2) and (5) and 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.09.2003.


title: Case T-40/12: Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/18

         Action brought on 30 January 2012 — European Dynamics Luxembourg and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis v European Police Office (Europol)
   (Case T-40/12)
   2012/C 109/40
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicants: European Dynamics Luxembourg SA (Ettelbrück, Luxembourg) and Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by V. Khristianos, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Form of order sought

   By this action the applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision dated 22 Νovember 2011 of the European Police Office (Europol), whereby Europol excluded the consortium’s bid by which the applicants participated in the open tendering procedure No D/C3/1104, and

               —

               order EUROPOL to pay the applicants’ entire costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants consider that the contested decision should be annulled, under Article 263 TFEU and put forward the following argument, which encompasses three considerations:

               First, Europol without any justification excluded the applicants’ bid, maintaining that the applicants altered the technical and financial terms of their bid, with the consequence that Europol has no legal basis for its decision to exclude the applicants.

               Second, Europol had no justification for its complaint to the applicants that their bid was inaccurate and for excluding it, when it was Europol which caused and consented to or condoned the existence of vagueness and lack of clarity as to the meaning of the terms ‘out of the box’ and ‘customisation’, contrary to the principle of transparency.

               Third, Europol, by excluding the applicants’ bid from the tendering procedure, infringed the principle of proportionality in the application of the terms of the contractual documents.


title: Case C-100/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — ASM Lithography BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst-Douane Zuid/kantoor Roermond (Customs Code — Determination of the customs debt — Import duties on compensating products determined by the person concerned and confirmed by the customs authorities under Article 121 of the Customs Code — Duties which can be calculated in accordance with Article 122(c) of the Customs Code — Repayment of the amount levied in excess on the basis of Article 236 of the Customs Code)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — ASM Lithography BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst-Douane Zuid/kantoor Roermond
   (Case C-100/05) (1)

   (Customs Code - Determination of the customs debt - Import duties on compensating products determined by the person concerned and confirmed by the customs authorities under Article 121 of the Customs Code - Duties which can be calculated in accordance with Article 122(c) of the Customs Code - Repayment of the amount levied in excess on the basis of Article 236 of the Customs Code)
   (2006/C 294/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ASM Lithography BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst-Douane Zuid/kantoor Roermond
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Articles 121(1), 122(c), 214 and 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Compensating products regarded as having been released for free circulation — Related customs debt established on the basis of the taxation rules set out in Article 122(c) of Regulation No 2913/92 — No prior and express request by the party concerned — Acceptance of a post-clearance request for a new calculation pursuant to Article 236 of Regulation No 2913/92
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 122(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is to be interpreted as meaning that, at the time of determining the amount of the customs debt resulting from the release for free circulation of compensating products, unless the person concerned has expressly made a request to that effect, the national customs authorities are not bound to apply the rules of assessment relating to the procedure for processing under customs control where the import goods could have been placed under that procedure.

               2.

               Article 236 of Regulation No 2913/92 is to be interpreted as meaning that the national customs authorities must allow a request for repayment of import duties where it transpires that, following an error by the person concerned and not through the exercise of a choice, the amount of the customs debt has been determined by applying Article 121 of that regulation and has already been the subject of a communication to the person concerned, even if that request entails a recalculation by those authorities of the amount of the debt by applying Article 122(c) of that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2005.


title: Case C-231/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 23 May 2005 in the proceedings brought by Oy Esab

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 23 May 2005 in the proceedings brought by Oy Esab
   (Case C-231/05)
   (2005/C 193/26)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Korkein hallinto-oikeus of 23 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 25 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings brought by Oy Esab on the following question:
   Are Articles 43 and 56 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities, having regard to Article 58 of the Treaty and Council Directive 90/435/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, (1) to be interpreted as precluding a system such as that of the Finnish group subsidy legislation in which a condition for the deductibility in taxation of a group subsidy is that both the donor and the donee of the group subsidy are companies resident in Finland?

      (1)  23 July 1990, OJ L 225 of 20.8.1990, p. 6.


title: Case C-266/07: Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/39

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-266/07) (1)

   (2008/C 51/72)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case C-119/06: Action brought on  28 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/29

         Action brought on 28 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-119/06)
   (2006/C 131/53)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, acting as Agent, and M. Mollica, Avvocato)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               A Declaration that, as the region of Tuscany and the Tuscan Aziende Sanitarie (public health authorities) concluded the regional framework agreement for the supply of healthcare transport services on 11 October 1999 with the Confederazione delle Misericordie d'Italia, ANPAS — the Tuscan regional committee and the Croce Rossa Italiana — Tuscan division, and subsequently extended that framework agreement by means of a memorandum of understanding on 28 March 2003 and, finally, in April 2004, on the basis of Regional Decision No 379 of 19 April 2004, concluded a new regional framework agreement maintaining the relationship with the above-mentioned organisations and entrusting the administration of the services in question to them for the period from January 2004 to December 2008, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts and, in particular, Articles 11, 15 and 17 thereof.

               —

               An order that the Italian Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission maintains that the above-mentioned agreements delegating the supply of services in question constitute public service contracts which were awarded directly, without recourse to any form of tendering procedure, and thus in breach of Community law on public contracts.

      (1)  OJ L 209 of 24/07/1992, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2012 — Council of the European Union (C-191/09 P), European Commission (C-200/09 P) v Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT), formerly Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant ‘Niko Tube’ ZAT, Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT), formerly Nizhnedneprovsky Tube-Rolling Plant VAT (Appeals — Anti-dumping duties — Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 — Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine — Regulation (EC) No 384/96 — Article 2(10)(i), Article 3(2), (3) and (5) to (7), Article 18(3) and Article 19(3) — Calculation of the normal value and of the injury — ‘Single economic entity’ — Rights of the defence — No statement of reasons)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2012 — Council of the European Union (C-191/09 P), European Commission (C-200/09 P) v Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT), formerly Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant ‘Niko Tube’ ZAT, Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT), formerly Nizhnedneprovsky Tube-Rolling Plant VAT
   (Joined Cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Anti-dumping duties - Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 - Imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine - Regulation (EC) No 384/96 - Article 2(10)(i), Article 3(2), (3) and (5) to (7), Article 18(3) and Article 19(3) - Calculation of the normal value and of the injury - ‘Single economic entity’ - Rights of the defence - No statement of reasons)
   2012/C 98/02
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, Agents, and G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt), European Commission (represented by: H.van Vliet and C. Clyne, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT), formerly Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant ‘Niko Tube’ ZAT, Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT), formerly Nizhnedneprovsky Tube-Rolling Plant VAT, European Commission (represented by: P. Vander Schueren, avocat, N. Mizulin, Solicitor)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 10 March 2009 in Case T-249/06 Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT) and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT) v Council of the European Union, annulling Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 of 27 June 2006 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel originating in Croatia, Romania, Russia and Ukraine, and repealing Regulations (EC) No 2320/97 and (EC) No 348/2000 (OJ 2006 L 175, p. 4)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal of the Council of the European Union;

               2.

               Dismisses the main appeal of the European Commission;

               3.

               Dismisses the cross-appeal of Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT) and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT);

               4.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case C-227/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 16 May 2011 — DHL Danzas Air & Ocean (Netherlands) BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem (Netherlands) lodged on 16 May 2011 — DHL Danzas Air & Ocean (Netherlands) BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat
   (Case C-227/11)
   2011/C 226/23
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Haarlem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DHL Danzas Air & Ocean (Netherlands) BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the active network analysers [of the type J6801B] be classified under heading 9030 40 or under heading 9031 80?

               2.

               Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 129/2005 (1) of 20 January 2005 … invalid because in that regulation the Commission incorrectly classified the network analysers mentioned in points 3 and 4, namely, under CN code 9031 80 39, instead of under code 9030 40?

      (1)  Concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature and amending Regulation (EC) No 955/98 (OJ 2005 L 25, p. 37).


title: Case C-186/12: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga — Portugal) — Impacto Azul Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA, Bouygues Imobiliária — SGPS Lda, Bouygues Immobilier SA, Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez (Freedom of establishment — Restrictions — Joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries — Exclusion of parent companies having their seat in another Member State — No restriction)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/32

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga — Portugal) — Impacto Azul Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA, Bouygues Imobiliária — SGPS Lda, Bouygues Immobilier SA, Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez
   (Case C-186/12) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Restrictions - Joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries - Exclusion of parent companies having their seat in another Member State - No restriction)
   2013/C 225/53
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Judicial de Braga

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Impacto Azul Lda

      Defendants: BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários SA, Bouygues Imobiliária — SGPS Lda, Bouygues Immobilier SA, Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Judicial de Braga — Interpretation of Article 49 TFEU — Restrictions on freedom of establishment — National rules excluding the joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiary companies for those parent companies having their seat in another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which excludes the application of the principle of the joint and several liability of parent companies vis-à-vis the creditors of their subsidiaries to parent companies having their seat in the territory of another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Case C-158/12: Action brought on 30 March 2012 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/18

         Action brought on 30 March 2012 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-158/12)
   2012/C 174/28
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova, K. Mifsud-Bonnici, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by not issuing permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or Directive 2008/1/EC (1) or, as appropriate, by not reconsidering and, where necessary, by not updating permit conditions, in respect of 13 existing pig rearing installations and poultry rearing installations in Ireland, and thereby by failing to ensure that those existing installations operate in accordance with Articles, 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of the IPPC Directive by not later than 30 October 2007, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligation pursuant to Article 5(1) of the IPCC Directive.

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Pursuant to Article 5(1) of the IPPC Directive, Member States were obliged to ensure that their competent authorities either issue permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 or, as appropriate, reconsider and, where necessary, update the existing permit conditions by not later than 30 October 2007.
   From the information available the Commission concludes that existing pig rearing installations and poultry rearing installation in Ireland are still operation without any IPPC permit and the Commission therefore concludes that Ireland is in breach of its obligations under Article 5(1) of the Directive.

      (1)  Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control
   OJ L 24, p. 8.


title: Case C-500/07 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2007 by Territorio Energia Ambiente SpA (TEA) against the order made by the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) on 17 September 2007 in Case T-175/07 Territorio Energia Ambiente SpA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/3

         Appeal brought on 19 November 2007 by Territorio Energia Ambiente SpA (TEA) against the order made by the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) on 17 September 2007 in Case T-175/07 Territorio Energia Ambiente SpA v Commission of the European Communities

   (Case C-500/07 P)
   (2008/C 37/04)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Territorio Energia Ambiente (TEA) (represented by: E. Coffrini and F. Tesauro, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul and/or amend in its entirety the order of the Court of First Instance at present under appeal, and rule as appropriate;

               —

               grant the forms of order already sought at first instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the Commission decision of 5 June 2002 (1)‘on State aid … in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding’, the income tax exemption scheme provided for by Article 3(70) of Law No 549/1995 and by Article 66(14) of Decree-Law No 331/1993, as converted and amended, in favour of joint-stock companies with majority public shareholdings and providing local public utilities was declared to constitute State aid incompatible with the common market. The Commission decision did not relate to specific companies but covered companies established within the terms of Article 22 of Law No 241/1990 with majority public shareholdings. The decision was for that reason not notified to any company (and was not notified to the appellant) as no individual addressees were specifically identified. The Italian State, by way of Legislative Decree No 10 of 15 February 2007, gave effect to the abovementioned decision, allocating the task of recovery to the revenue authorities. Accordingly, on 29 March 2007, the Mantova revenue office sent to the appellant company a payment demand for the capital sum of EUR 1 748 289,75 plus interest of EUR 912 180,64.
   The appellant company, however, is not a company with a majority public shareholding, but is, rather, entirely public, with the result that ‘the Commission's findings and its decision’ cannot apply to it.
   The appellant has in-house responsibility for local public utilities, the management of which had previously been entrusted by the commune of Mantova to the municipally-owned undertaking (ASM), which was transformed into the appellant company pursuant to Law No 127/97.
   The appellant manages the public utilities under a private structure, within an essentially local context, without being able to influence free competition, which cannot exist as there is no market.
   A company with a wholly public shareholding is nothing other than an indirect body of the associated communes, which are the actual recipients of the fiscal aid with which the Commission takes issue.
   On objective and subjective grounds, therefore, the tax exemption granted to the appellant cannot be classified as unwarranted State aid at variance with the requirements of Article 87 EC.
   For the reasons outlined, an action was brought before the Court of First Instance against the abovementioned Commission decision. It was registered as Case T-175/07 and assigned to the Fourth Chamber. A decision in the case was given by way of an order of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2007 declaring the action to be inadmissible on the ground of failure to comply with the time-limit laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, according to which the action for annulment ought to have been brought within two months of the publication of the contested measure, or of its notification to the appellant or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be, in accordance with Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
   It is submitted that that finding is without basis, also in the light of the judgments in Case 730/79 Philip Morris Holland
       (2), Case 323/82 Intermills
       (3), Case T-358/94 Air France
       (4), and, in particular, the judgment of the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-346/03 and C-529/03 Atzeni and Others
       (5), for which reason it is requested in the present appeal that the order of the Court of First Instance be amended.
   The action before the Court of First Instance was brought immediately after the appellant company had become aware that it was one of the addressees of the Commission's decision, that is to say, when it was notified of the payment demand issued by the revenue office.
   The order of the Court of First Instance is also challenged on the ground that it gave effect to a misapplication of Article 225 EC.
   The application for annulment of the Commission decision is to be treated as inherently linked to the request that the appellant not be made subject to that decision. It is accordingly requested that the order made at first instance be amended, also in regard to the declared lack of competence ratione materiae on the part of the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21.

      (2)  [1980] ECR 2671.

      (3)  [1984] ECR 3809.

      (4)  [1996] ECR II-2109.

      (5)  [2006] ECR I-1875.


title: Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH (C-37/06), Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) (C-58/06) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Regulation (EC) No 615/98 — Directive 91/628/EEC — Export refunds — Protection of bovine animals during transport — Payment of export refunds for bovine animals subject to compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC — Principle of proportionality — Forfeiture of export refunds)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 January 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH (C-37/06), Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) (C-58/06) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 615/98 - Directive 91/628/EEC - Export refunds - Protection of bovine animals during transport - Payment of export refunds for bovine animals subject to compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC - Principle of proportionality - Forfeiture of export refunds)
   (2008/C 64/06)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH (C-37/06), Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) (C-58/06)

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Validity of Articles 1 and 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19) — Payment of export refunds for bovine animals subject to compliance with the provisions of 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) — Forfeiture of a refund as a result of a failure to observe prescribed rest periods during the transport of the animals
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Consideration of the first question has disclosed nothing capable of casting doubt on the validity of Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport.

               2)

               Consideration of the second question has disclosed nothing capable of casting doubt on the validity of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 in the light of the principle of proportionality. It is for the Finanzgericht Hamburg to assess whether the competent authorities have applied the relevant provisions of Regulation No 615/98 in a manner that is consonant with that principle.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-418/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck, Austria) — TEXDATA Software GmbH (Company law — Freedom of establishment — Eleventh Directive 89/666/EEC — Disclosure of accounting documents — Branch of a capital company established in another Member State — Pecuniary penalty in the event of failure to disclose within the prescribed period — Right to effective judicial protection — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence — Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature of the penalty)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck, Austria) — TEXDATA Software GmbH
   (Case C-418/11) (1)

   (Company law - Freedom of establishment - Eleventh Directive 89/666/EEC - Disclosure of accounting documents - Branch of a capital company established in another Member State - Pecuniary penalty in the event of failure to disclose within the prescribed period - Right to effective judicial protection - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence - Effective, proportionate and dissuasive nature of the penalty)
   2013/C 344/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck

      Parties to the main proceedings

   TEXDATA Software GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU; the second paragraph of Article 47 and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; the general principle of the right to effective legal protection; Article 6 of First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 41); Article 60a of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of companies, as amended (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11); and of Article 38(6) of Seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on consolidated accounts (OJ 1983 L 193, p. 1) — Publication of consolidated annual accounts of certain types of company — Legislation of a Member State under which, in the event of failure to disclose within nine months the consolidated annual accounts to the court having jurisdiction, a pecuniary penalty is to be imposed without the bodies authorised to represent the company being given an opportunity to state their views

      Operative part of the judgment

   Subject to the verifications to be carried out by the referring court, Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU, the principles of effective judicial protection and respect for the rights of the defence, and Article 12 of Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of branches opened in a Member State by certain types of company governed by the law of another State are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, where the statutory nine-month period for disclosing accounting documents is exceeded, a minimum periodic penalty of EUR 700 is to be imposed immediately on the capital company whose branch is located in the Member State concerned, without prior notice and without the company first being given an opportunity to state its views on the alleged breach of the disclosure obligation.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.


title: Case C-378/09: Action brought on 23 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/15

         Action brought on 23 September 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-378/09)
   2009/C 312/24
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Šimerdová and J.-B, Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to implement correctly in its national legislation the provisions of the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of the Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (85/337/EEC), (1) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (2) and Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, (3) the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first, second and third paragraphs of Article 10a of that directive;

               —

               order Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period of implementing the directive into the domestic legal order expired on 25 June 2005.

      (1)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

      (2)  Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment; OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.

      (3)  Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programmes relating to the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC; OJ 2003 L 156, p. 17.


title: Case C-248/00: Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/23
—     The Court of First Instance further failed to consider the       The applicant claims that the Court should:
      question as to where the appellant maintained his family
      residence during the relevant period.
                                                                       —      Declare that, by maintaining in force the provisions
                                                                              contained in Articles 78(2) and 120(1) of the Regulations
                                                                              on Port Authorities Registration, relating to the registra-
                                                                              tion of vessels and the right to fly the Portuguese
                                                                              flag, reserving that right to Portuguese nationals, the
                                                                              Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
                                                                              Article 12 EC) and Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
                                                                              amendment, Article 43 EC);
(Divisional Court), by order of that court of 23 May 2000,
in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
   Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress                 —      Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-243/00)
                         (2000/C 233/43)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                       It is apparent from the wording of the abovementioned articles
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
                                                                       of the Regulamento Geral das Capitanias (General Regulation
Court) of 23 May 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                       of the Port Authorities — RGC) that the right to fly the
Registry on 19 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       Portuguese flag is granted only to vessels of Portuguese
of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
                                                                       nationality, a conditio sine qua non for registration of those
Ex parte: Trades Union Congress, on the following question:
                                                                       same vessels. Although Article 4(1) of Decreto-Lei (decree-law)
                                                                       No 214/86 repeals ‘all statutory provisions which, directly or
‘Whether Directive 96/34/EC (1) (as extended to the United             indirectly, limit or condition the right of establishment on
Kingdom by Directive 97/75/EC) (2), and the Framework                  grounds of the nationality of the investor or undertaking
Agreement of 14 December 1995 to which it gave effect,                 concerned’, since that decree-law concerns the right of
required Member States to confer the right to parental leave in        establishment in general, it does not contain any provisions
relation to children under the specified age born or adopted           relating to the granting of the right to fly the national flag.
before the date on which the Directive was given effect in the         Furthermore, the Portuguese Republic itself acknowledges that
national law of Member States or only to children born or              the provisions of the RGC at issue is inadequate, so that it is to
adopted on or after that date.’                                        be suspended pending adoption of new legislation.
(1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework
    agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
    ETUC (OJ L 145, 19.06.96, p. 4).
(2) OJ L 10, 16.01.98, p. 24.
Action brought on 21 June 2000 by the Commission                       Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      the European Communities against the French Republic
                              Republic
                         (Case C-247/00)                                                        (Case C-248/00)
                         (2000/C 233/44)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/45)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 June
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities                     An action against the French Republic was brought before the
represented by Thomas Van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Ana                 Court of Justice on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Maria Alves, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an           European Communities, represented by Gerard Berscheid, of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos              its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Kirchberg.                                                             Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court should:
                                                                          Article 12 prohibits all discrimination on the grounds of
(1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the               nationality. Article 49 EC, for its part, lays down the principle
      prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and admi-              of freedom to provide services, according to which, an
      nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with               economic operator established in one Member State must be
      Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September 1998                   able to pursue his activities in another Member State, without
      amending       Directives       80/511/EEC,      82/475/EEC,        his nationality giving rise to discrimination by comparison
      91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC and repe-                 with the nationals of the second Member State. However,
      aling Directive 92/87/EEC (1), the French Republic has              Article 6 of Portaria (order) No 17568 of 6 February 1960
      failed to comply with its obligations under Article 7 of            requires ‘foreign entities or individuals’ to obtain a licence for
      Directive 98/67/EC;                                                 the taking of aerial photographs or film. The Portuguese
                                                                          authorities confirm that they do apply the legislation at issue,
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           considering such restrictions to be necessary, not on grounds
                                                                          of the nationality of the entity which applies for authorisation
                                                                          or is to use such photographs, but on the basis of the need to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           protect the strategic interests of national defence. However,
                                                                          mere interpretation by the Portuguese administration which
                                                                          makes more flexible the provisions of the aforementioned
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                  order, with a view to making the conditions laid down for
put forward in Case C-236/00 (2); the period prescribed for               foreigners similar to those laid down for nationals, is not
transposition expired on 31 December 1998.                                sufficient to cure the incompatibility.
(1) OJ L 261 of 24.9.1998, p. 10.
(2) See page 21 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Tribu-
                                                                          tário de 1.a Instância de Lisboa, 2.o Juizo — 1.a Secção by
                                                                          order of that court of 13 March 2000 in the case of
                                                                          Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda against
                                                                          the Chefe da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e
                                                                                Fiscais/Direcção das Alfândegas de Lisboa
Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                                                 (Case C-251/00)
                              Republic
                                                                                (2000/C 233/47)
                         (Case C-250/00)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (2000/C 233/46)                                  European Communities by order of the Tribunal Tributário de
                                                                          1.a Instância de Lisboa 2.o Juizo — 1.a Secção (Second Division
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before              — First Chamber of the Fiscal Court of First Instance of Lisbon)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June               of 13 March 2000, which was received at the Court Registry
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       on 26 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
represented by Maria Patakia and Miguel França, of its Legal              Ilumitrónica — Iluminação e Electrónica Lda against the Chefe
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                 da Divisão de Procedimentos Aduaneiros e Fiscais/Direcção
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its              das Alfândegas de Lisboa. The Tribunal Tributário de 1.a Instân-
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                  cia de Lisboa, 2.o Juı́zo — 1.a Secção, asks the Court of Justice
                                                                          to rule on: (a) the interpretation of Article 201(3) of the
                                                                          Community Customs Code (CCC), established by Council
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992; (b) the
                                                                          validity of the Commission’s decision, in order to be able to
—     Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation which             answer the following questions:
      only authorises Community nationals to take aerial
      photographs or film in exceptional and duly justified               1.    Is it permissible to require payment of the customs debt
      cases, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12             by importers who, acting in good faith and with due care,
      and 49 EC;                                                                processed their declarations, over a number of years,
                                                                                unaware of any irregularities which were known to either
—     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                           the Turkish or Community authorities?


title: Case F-94/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Execution of a judgment — Reimbursement of expenses — Intention of the administration to make a deduction from the invalidity allowance of the official — No act adversely affecting the applicant — Action for damages — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/78

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-94/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Execution of a judgment - Reimbursement of expenses - Intention of the administration to make a deduction from the invalidity allowance of the official - No act adversely affecting the applicant - Action for damages - Manifestly inadmissible)
   2010/C 24/147
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to claim the costs in Case T-241/03 and an application for damages for the harm suffered by the applicant as a result.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action brought by Mr Marcuccio is rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009, p. 46.


title: Case T-7/05: Action brought on 11 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Parthenon A.E.

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/39

         Action brought on 11 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against Parthenon A.E.
   (Case T-7/05)
   (2005/C 57/66)
   Language of the Case: Greek
   An action against Parthenon – Anonimos Etairia Ikodomikon – Touristikon – Viomikhanikon – Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 January 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Dimitrios Triantafillou, Legal Adviser, assisted by Nikolaos Korogiannakis, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 325 452,80, which corresponds to EUR 259 800 by way of principal sum and EUR 65 652,80 in default interest up to 10 January 2005;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay in addition interest of EUR 71,18 per day until the debt has been settled in full;

               3.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Community, represented by the European Commission, concluded with the defendant, as coordinator and member of a joint venture, a contract that formed part of implementation of the provisions of the specific programme of ‘research, technological development and demonstration in the field of agriculture and fisheries’. More specifically, the contract was concerned with the carrying out of a project entitled ‘development of a new process in fruit cleansing and peeling’ and was to be performed within a period of 24 months from 1 September 1998. Under the contract the Commission entered into the obligation to make a financial contribution towards the proper execution of the project amounting to 50 % of the allowable costs, the maximum contribution being ECU 433 000.
   Since the work had not been completed on the prescribed date (31 August 2000) and the defendant had not lodged a scientific report and a cost statement, as stipulated by the contract, the Commission decided to terminate the contract with effect from 24 February 2001. The subsequent correspondence between the defendant and the Commission did not, in the Commission's view, reveal new matters which could alter the content of the Commission's decision.
   By its action, the Commission seeks reimbursement of the sum of EUR 259 800, which it paid to the defendant as an advance in respect of its financial contribution to the performance of the work, and payment of the interest due on that sum, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Greek law which is applicable under the contract.


C 358/12               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 21.11.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de              The time-limit here passed on 23 November 1995 without
Prud'hommes (Industrial Tribunal), Bobigny, by judgment             the Italian Republic having adopted the provisions
of 2 July 1998 in the case of Bernard Bauduin and                   necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the
                Laurent Blondeau v. Renault SA                      form of order sought by the Commission.
                        (Case C-360/98)
                                                                    (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 1.
                         (98/C 358/21)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Conseil de
Prud'hommes, Bobigny, of 2 July 1998, which was
received at the Court Registry on 8 October 1998, for a                   Removal from the register of Case C-168/97 (1)
preliminary ruling in the case of Bernard Bauduin and
                                                                                (98/C 358/23)
Laurent Blondeau v. Renault SA on the following
question:
                                                                    By order of 16 September 1998 the President of the Court
Is Article 18 of the Agreement of 5 July 1991 compatible            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
with the provisions of Community law, and Article 119 of            removal from the register of Case C-168/97 (reference for
the Treaty of Rome in particular?                                   a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,
                                                                    Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. Secretary of State
                                                                    for Defence ex parte: Terence Perkins.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 199, 28.6.1997.
Action brought on 9 October 1998 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                        (Case C-362/98)
                         (98/C 358/22)
                                                                            Removal from the register of Case C-5/98 (1)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                                    (98/C 358/24)
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 October 1998 by the Commission of the European                    By order of 25 September 1998 the President of the Court
Communities, represented by Pieter Jan Kuijper, Legal               of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in            removal from the register of Case C-5/98 (reference for a
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           AngouleÃme): SA Otor Godard v. Administration des
                                                                    Impôts.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,            (1) OJ C 72, 7.3.1998.
    regulations and administrative provisions necessary
    to comply with Council Directive 93/103/EC (1) of
    23 November 1993 concerning the minimum safety
    and health requirements for work on board fishing
    vessels, and/or by failing to notify the Commission of
    those provisions, the Italian Republic has failed to                   Removal from the register of Case C-82/96 (1)
    fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;                                              (98/C 358/25)
Ð order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
                                                                    By order of 7 October 1998 the President of the Court of
    proceedings.
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 removal from the register of Case C-82/96 (reference for a
                                                                    preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice,
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive is            Queen's Bench Division): The Queen v. The Secretary of
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each                 State for Trade and Industry ex parte: The Consumers'
Member State to which it is addressed, involves an                  Association and Which? Ltd.
obligation on the part of Member States to comply with
the time-limits for transposition laid down in directives.          (1) OJ C 145, 18.5.1996.


title: Case C-289/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus (Estonia) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS v Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu Maakohus (Estonia) lodged on 19 May 2017 — Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS v Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov
   (Case C-289/17)
   (2017/C 249/31)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu Maakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Collect Inkasso OÜ, ITM Inkasso OÜ, Bigbank AS

      Defendants: Rain Aint, Lauri Palm, Raiko Oikimus, Egle Noor, Artjom Konjarov

      Questions referred

               1.1.

               Must Article 17(a) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that all the information listed in Article 17(a) of the Regulation must be clearly stated in or together with the document instituting the proceedings, the equivalent document or any summons to a court hearing? Specifically, is certification of a judgment as a European Enforcement Order under Articles 3(1)(b), 6(1)(c) and 17(a) of the regulation excluded if the debtor has not been notified of the address of the institution to which to respond but he has been notified of all the other information listed in Article 17(a)?

               1.2.

               Must Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims be interpreted as meaning that, if the proceedings in the Member State of origin do not meet the procedural requirements as set out in Articles 17 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004, for such non-compliance to be cured all the information listed in Article 18(1)(b) must have been notified to the debtor in due time in or together with the judgment? Specifically, is the issue of a European Enforcement Order excluded if the debtor has not been notified of the address of the institution with which a challenge must be lodged but he has been notified of all the other information listed in Article 18(1)(b)?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15.


title: Case T-262/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  15 December 2005  — BIC v OHIM (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of an electronic lighter — Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Distinctive character acquired by use — Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 2005 — BIC v OHIM
   (Case T-262/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of an electronic lighter - Absolute ground for refusal - Distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Distinctive character acquired by use - Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 60/74)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: BIC SA (Clichy, France) (represented by: M.-P Escande and A. Guillemin, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the Fourth Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2004 (Case R 468/2003-4), in relation to the registration as a Community trade mark of a three-dimensional trade mark in the shape of an electronic lighter
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application.

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.


title: Case C-515/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Vereniging Noordelijke Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Goods and services forming part of the assets of a business for use in taxable transactions and in transactions other than taxable transactions — Right to an immediate and full deduction of the tax paid in respect of the acquisition of such goods and services)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — Vereniging Noordelijke Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-515/07) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Goods and services forming part of the assets of a business for use in taxable transactions and in transactions other than taxable transactions - Right to an immediate and full deduction of the tax paid in respect of the acquisition of such goods and services)
   (2009/C 82/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vereniging Noordelijke Land- en Tuinbouw Organisatie

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Articles 6(2) and 17(1), (2) and (6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Goods and services (not only capital goods used partly for business and partly for private purposes) — Allocation in full to the taxpayer's business assets — Possibility of deducting immediately and in full the tax on the purchase of such goods and services.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 6(2)(a) and 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as not being applicable to the use of goods and services allocated to the business for the purpose of transactions other than the taxable transactions of the taxable person, as the value added tax due in respect of the acquisition of those goods and services, and relating to such transactions, is not deductible.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case T-45/11: Action brought on 21 January 2011 — Italy v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/30

         Action brought on 21 January 2011 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-45/11)
   2011/C 80/55
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2010) 7893 final of 10 November 2010, notified to the Italian Republic by memorandum SG-Greffe (2010) D/18018 of 11 November 2010, refusing to refer Case COMP/M.5960 — Crédit Agricole/Cassa di Risparmio della Spezia/Agenzie Intesa Sanpaolo.

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the Commission’s decision refusing the Italian authorities’ request for a referral to the competition authorities, pursuant to Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 2004 L 24, p. 1), of the concentration notified to the Commission by means of which Crédit Agricole S. A. acquired, through its subsidiary Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenza S.p.A., sole control over Cassa di Risparmio della Spezia S.p.A., which is currently controlled by Intesa Sanpaolo.
   The applicant relies on five grounds in support of its action.

               1.

               First ground, alleging infringement of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 in so far as the Commission claimed that the request to refer the case was out of time and unreasoned.

               2.

               Second ground, alleging infringement of Article 9(2)(a), subparagraph (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and failure to state reasons.
               It is submitted in that connection that the Commission incorrectly attached importance to the fact that after the concentration the market shares would remain unchanged. In fact, Crédit Agricole would achieve such shares by means of concentration and not, like Intesa Sanapaolo pre-concentration, as a result of internal expansion. There was therefore an impact on the provincial retail banking services market.

               3.

               Third ground, alleging infringement of Article 9(2)(a) and (b), subparagraph (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and failure to state reasons.
               The applicant considers, contrary to what is claimed by the Commission, that the provincial banking services market exists: the users of such services are not inclined to move and it is difficult for other operators to enter a saturated provincial market. There was therefore a restricted market which did not form a substantive part of the common market.

               4.

               Fourth ground, alleging infringement of Article 9(2)(a) and (b), subparagraph (b) of the first subparagraph of Article 9(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 9(3) of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and failure to state reasons.
               In this connection, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to take account of the infringement proceedings initiated by the competition authorities against Crédit Agricole and Intesa Sanpaolo, which should therefore have been regarded, for the purpose of determining the effect on the market, as related parties and not competitors.

               5.

               Fifth ground, alleging infringement of Articles 1 and 9(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No139/2004 and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
               The applicant is of the view that the concentration was not of Community interest and that the competition authorities were better placed to make such an assessment. At the very least, the Commission should have referred the part of the operation which affected the provincial markets mentioned in the decision.


title: Case C-225/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Cortona (Italy)) — Edyta Joanna Jakubowska v Alessandro Maneggia (European Union rules on the practice of the profession of lawyer — Directive 98/5/EC — Article 8 — Prevention of conflicts of interest — National rules prohibiting the practice of the profession of lawyer concurrently with employment as a part-time public employee — Removal from the register of lawyers)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Cortona (Italy)) — Edyta Joanna Jakubowska v Alessandro Maneggia
   (Case C-225/09) (1)

   (European Union rules on the practice of the profession of lawyer - Directive 98/5/EC - Article 8 - Prevention of conflicts of interest - National rules prohibiting the practice of the profession of lawyer concurrently with employment as a part-time public employee - Removal from the register of lawyers)
   2011/C 30/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di pace di Cortona

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Edyta Joanna Jakubowska

      Defendant: Alessandro Maneggia

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Giudice di pace di Cortona — Interpretation of Article 6 of Directive 77/249/EEC of 22 March 1977 to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of the freedom to provide services (OJ 1977 L 78, p. 17), Article 8 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate the practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36), and Articles 3, 4, 10, 81 and 98 EC — National rules providing for the incompatibility of the practice of the profession of lawyer concurrently with employment as a part-time public employee — Removal from the register of lawyers who did not choose between private practice and part-time employment.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 3(1)(g) EC, 4 EC, 10 EC, 81 EC and 98 EC do not preclude national rules which prevent part-time public officials from practising the profession of lawyer, despite their being qualified to do so, by laying down that they are to be removed from the register of the competent Bar Council;

               2.

               Article 8 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained must be interpreted as meaning that it is open to a host Member State to impose on lawyers registered with a Bar in that Member State who are also, whether full or part-time, in the employ of another lawyer, an association or firm of lawyers, or a public or private enterprise, restrictions on the exercise of the profession of lawyer concurrent with that employment, provided that those restrictions do not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain the objective of preventing conflicts of interest and apply to all the lawyers registered in that Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 29.8.2009.


title: Case C-449/05: Action brought on  16 December 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/26

         Action brought on 16 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-449/05)
   (2006/C 36/53)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. Cattabriga and S. Visaggio, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by not taking all the necessary legal and administrative measures to comply with Directive 2003/99/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 (1) on the monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents, amending Council Decision 90/424/EEC (2) and repealing Council Directive 92/117/EEC (3), or by not notifying the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the first paragraph of Article 14(1) of that directive.

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for implementing the directive expired on 12 April 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 325, 12.12.2003, p. 31.

      (2)  OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 19.

      (3)  OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 38.


title: Case T-499/12: Action brought on 13 November 2012 — HSH Investment Holdings Coinvest-C and HSH Investment Holdings FSO v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/59

         Action brought on 13 November 2012 — HSH Investment Holdings Coinvest-C and HSH Investment Holdings FSO v Commission
   (Case T-499/12)
   2013/C 26/119
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: HSH Investment Holdings Coinvest-C Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and HSH Investment Holdings FSO Sàrl (Luxembourg) (represented by: H. Niemeyer and H. Ehlers, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 20 September 2011 in Case C 29/2009 (ex N 264/2009) — HSH Nordbank AG;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on the following pleas in law to contest the conditions imposed on the minority shareholders:

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that no discrete aid was granted to the minority shareholders
               The applicants maintain that the Commission incorrectly applied the concept of State aid in Article 107(1) TFEU by wrongly identifying the applicants as aid recipients. An increase in the value of the minority shareholders’ shareholdings was simply an economic reflex following the aid granted to HSH Nordbank and not an indirect aid to the minority shareholders.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging insufficient reasoning for the finding that the applicants obtained an advantage
               The applicants argue in relation to this plea that the Commission infringed the duty to state reasons contained in Article 296(2) TFEU by failing to explain adequately its finding that the applicants had received indirect aid or the reasons why the valuation of HSH Nordbank had been incorrectly determined. In addition, the Commission did not provide a figure for the level of the supposed aid to the minority shareholders and mixed up the examination of that aid with the examination of the burden-sharing.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging incorrect fact-finding when examining whether the applicants received a financial advantage
               In the context of this plea, the applicants complain that the Commission made mistakes in its determination of the facts. According to the applicants, the company which valued HSH Nordbank did not overvalue HSH Nordbank or thus the issue price of the new ordinary shares but carried out the valuation in conformity with recognised valuation methods.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging failure to take into account prior payments by the applicants in the context of burden-sharing
               The applicants claim that the Commission misapplied the conditions relating to burden-sharing which follow from Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the restructuring communication, (1) when — while examining whether the applicants are sufficiently involved in the burden-sharing — it failed to take the prior payments made by them into account.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) and the principle of legal certainty by terminating the formal investigation procedure unlawfully
               The applicants argue in this connection that the Commission infringed Article 7(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 and the principle of legal certainty by terminating the formal investigation procedure with regard to the applicants without a decision of the kind provided for in Article 7 of Regulation No 659/1999.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 659/1999, Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the restructuring communication by the imposition of inappropriate conditions
               With regard to this plea, the applicants argue that the Commission infringed Article 7(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 and the restructuring communication by imposing conditions unrelated to the restructuring of HSH Nordbank which in fact amounted to a covert authorisation of indirect aid subject to conditions.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging infringement of the proportionality principle owing to an excessive burden being imposed on the applicants
               The applicants complain that the Commission infringed the proportionality principle by imposing an excessive burden on them in the context of burden-sharing.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment by discriminating against the applicants
               The applicants argue in this regard that the Commission infringed the principle of equal treatment by imposing conditions on the applicants in its decision which it had not imposed in other comparable cases.

         The applicants raise the following additional pleas in law in respect of the contested decision:

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the impaired assets communication (3) by calculating the incompatible aid element incorrectly
               In the context of this plea it is argued that the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the impaired assets communication by incorrectly calculating the so-called incompatible aid element connected with the guarantee in favour of HSH Nordbank.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Insufficient reasoning regarding determination of actual economic value
               The applicants argue in relation to this plea that the Commission did not provide sufficient reasons how it determined the actual economic value of the portfolio covered by the guarantee.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the impaired assets communication as a result of incorrect calculation of the claw-back
               The applicants claim that the Commission infringed Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the impaired assets communication by calculating the claw-back incorrectly.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: Infringement of the principle of equality in the calculation of the claw-back
               Fourth, it is argued in the context in question that the Commission infringed the principle of equality by treating the HSH Nordbank unfavourably compared with other comparable cases.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: Infringement of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the proportionality principle by making authorisation conditional upon a disproportionately high balance sheet reduction
               Finally, the applicants claim that the Commission also infringed Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and the principle of proportionality by making its authorisation conditional upon a disproportionately high balance sheet reduction for HSH Nordbank.

      (1)  Commission communication on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules (OJ 2009 C 195, p. 9).

      (2)  Council Regulation No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

      (3)  Commission Communication on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking sector (OJ 2009 C 72, p. 1).


title: Case T-24/16: Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods v OHIM — Mueloliva (FONTOLIVA)

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/38

         Action brought on 21 January 2016 — Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods v OHIM — Mueloliva (FONTOLIVA)
   (Case T-24/16)
   (2016/C 106/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sovena Portugal — Consumer Goods, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: D. Martins Pereira, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mueloliva, SL (Cordoba, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the word mark ‘FONTOLIVA’ — International registration No 1 107 792 designating the European Union

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 November 2015 in Case R 1813/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               admit this action;

               —

               dismiss the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               rectify the contested decision, based on the grounds in this action and declare the granting of protection to International Trademark No 1 107 792 FONTOLIVA in respect of the European Union;

               —

               condemn OHIM in the incurred expenses by the applicant, including the expenses made in the case which run with OHIM;

               —

               condemn the other party in the case to bear the applicant’s costs in the OHIM proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Lapse of earlier Spanish trademark No 780 071 FUENOLIVA;

               —

               Insufficiency of the evidence of genuine use of earlier trademark;

               —

               Inexistence of likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) CTMR;

               —

               Existence of two earlier trademarks FONTOLIVA in Spain.


title: Case C-566/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Stadeco BV (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 21(1)(c) — Tax due solely as a result of being mentioned on the invoice — Refund of tax improperly invoiced — Unjust enrichment)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag (Netherlands)) — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Stadeco BV
   (Case C-566/07) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 21(1)(c) - Tax due solely as a result of being mentioned on the invoice - Refund of tax improperly invoiced - Unjust enrichment)
   2009/C 180/17
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Defendant: Stadeco BV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Den Haag — Interpretation of Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Tax not payable in the Member State of residence of the issuer of an invoice in respect of an activity in another Member State or in a non-member country — Correction of the erroneously invoiced tax

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 21(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 must be interpreted as meaning that turnover tax is due, in accordance with that provision, to the Member State to which the VAT mentioned on an invoice or other document serving as invoice relates, even if the transaction in question was not taxable in that Member State. It is for the national court to ascertain, taking into account all the relevant circumstances of the case, to which Member State the VAT mentioned on the invoice in question is due. In particular, the rate mentioned, the currency in which the amount to be paid is expressed, the language in which the invoice was drawn up, the content and context of the invoice at issue, the place of establishment of the issuer of that invoice and the beneficiary of the services performed, as well as their behaviour, can be relevant in that regard.

               2.

               The principle of fiscal neutrality does not generally preclude Member States from making the refund of VAT due in that Member State merely because it was erroneously mentioned on the invoice subject to the requirement that the taxable person have sent the beneficiary of the services performed a corrected invoice not mentioning that VAT, if the taxable person has not completely eliminated in sufficient time the risk of the loss of tax revenue.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


title: Case F-16/15: Action brought on 30 January 2015  — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/27

         Action brought on 30 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-16/15)
   (2015/C 096/35)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions to change the description of the type of post held by the applicants in the Sysper 2 application and not to include them in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AST 10 in the context of the promotion round for 2014.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim, primarily, that the Tribunal should:

               —

               declare Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, Annex I thereto and the corresponding transitional measures to be unlawful;

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion;

               —

               annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AST 10 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         In the alternative, the applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April 2014 to amend the applicants’ promotion files contained in the ‘Sysper 2’ system in order to block any possibility of their promotion;

               —

               annul the subsequent decision of the appointing authority, notified on 24 June 2014, not to include the applicants in the list of officials proposed for promotion to grade AST 10 in the context of the annual promotion round for 2014 provided for in Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-169/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Sandra Castronovo v Ministero dell’Interno

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/31

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio lodged on 2 April 2010 — Sandra Castronovo v Ministero dell’Interno
      (Case C-169/10)
      (2010/C 161/43)
      Language of the case: Italian

         Referring court

      Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Sandra Castronovo

         Defendant: Ministero dell’Interno

         Question referred

      Is a national system under national legislation (introduced as from the Bersani Decree, Decree-Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into Law No 248 of 4 August 2006) compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty, when it, inter alia:

                  (a)

                  tends generally to protect holders of licences issued at an earlier period following a tendering procedure that unlawfully excluded some operators;

                  (b)

                  in fact ensures the maintenance of acquired commercial positions (by, for example, prohibiting new licensees from locating their kiosks within a specified distance of those already in existence);

                  (c)

                  provides for cases in which the licence may lapse when the licensee directly or indirectly carries on cross- border gaming activities analogous to those under the licence?


               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/11

         Removal from the register of Case C-102/03 (1)

   (2005/C 330/22)

      (Language of the case: Italian)

   By order of 6 September 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-102/03 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Tribunale di Brindisi): in criminal proceedings against v Gianfranco Casale, Giuseppe Eugenio Caroli.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.


title: Case T-635/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tuum v OHIM — Thun (TUUM)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/48

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Tuum v OHIM — Thun (TUUM)
   (Case T-635/15)
   (2016/C 016/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Tuum Srl (San Giustino, Italy) (represented by: B. Saguatti, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Thun SpA (Bolzano, Italy)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘TUUM’ — Application for registration No 11 939 774

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 2624/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               reject definitively and in its entirety the opposition to the registration of the mark applied for in respect of the claimed goods in Class 14;

               —

               instruct OHIM to register the mark applied for;

               —

               order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement and misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-484/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s Gravenhage (Netherlands), lodged on 31 October 2012 — Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s Gravenhage (Netherlands), lodged on 31 October 2012 — Georgetown University v Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum
   (Case C-484/12)
   2013/C 26/43
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank ’s Gravenhage

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Georgetown University

      Defendant: Octrooicentrum Nederland, operating under the name NL Octrooicentrum

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, (1) more particularly Article 3(c) thereof, preclude, in a situation where there is a basic patent in force which protects several products, the holder of the basic patent from being granted a certificate for each of the protected products?

               2.

               If the first question must be answered in the affirmative, how should Article 3(c) of the Regulation be interpreted in the situation where there is one basic patent in force which protects several products, and where, at the date of the application for a certificate in respect of one of the products (A) protected by the basic patent, no certificates had in fact yet been granted in respect of other products (B, C) protected by the same basic patent, but where certificates were nevertheless granted in respect of those applications in respect of the products (B, C) before a decision was made with regard to the application for a certificate in respect of the first-mentioned product (A)?

               3.

               Is it significant for the answer to the previous question whether the application in respect of one of the products (A) protected by the basic patent was submitted on the same date as the applications in respect of other products (B, C) protected by the same basic patent?

               4.

               If the first question must be answered in the affirmative, may a certificate be granted for a product protected by a basic patent which is in force if a certificate had already been granted earlier for another product protected by the same basic patent, but where the applicant surrenders the latter certificate with a view to obtaining a new certificate on the basis of the same basic patent?

               5.

               If the issue of whether the surrender has retroactive effect is relevant for the purpose of answering the previous question, is the question of whether surrender has retroactive effect governed by Article 14(b) of the Regulation or by national law? If the question of whether surrender has retroactive effect is governed by Article 14(b) of the Regulation, should that provision be interpreted to mean that surrender does have retroactive effect?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1.