title: Case C-1/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Utlänningsnämnden by order of that court of 30 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 4 January 2005, in the case of Yunying Jia against Migrationsverket

text:
               5.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 57/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Utlänningsnämnden by order of that court of 30 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 4 January 2005, in the case of Yunying Jia against Migrationsverket
   (Case C-1/05)
   (2005/C 57/36)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Utlänningsnämnden (Alien Appeals Board) (Sweden) of 30 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 4 January 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Yunying Jia against Migrationsverket (Immigration Board) on the following questions:

               1

                           a.

                           In the light of the judgment in Case C-109/01, is Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 to be interpreted as meaning that a national of a non-Member State related to a worker as specified therein must be lawfully within the Community in order to have the right permanently to reside with the worker – and, in the same way, is Article 1 of Directive 73/148/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the right to permanent residence of a relative of a citizen of the Union, who is a national of a non-Member State, presupposes that the national of a non-Member State is lawfully resident in the Community?

                           b.

                           If Directive 73/148/EEC is to be interpreted as meaning that lawful residence within the Community is a requirement in order for a relative of a citizen of the Union, who is a national of a non-Member State, to be able to claim the right to permanent residence under the directive, does that then imply that the relative is to hold a current residence permit valid for or intended to lead to permanent residence in one of the Member States? If there is no permanent residence permit is a residence permit granted on other grounds for a shorter or longer stay sufficient, or is it, as in the case pending before the Utlänningsnämnden, sufficient if the relative applying for a residence permit holds a valid visa?

                           c.

                           If a relative of a citizen of the Union, who is a national of a non-Member State, cannot benefit from the right to permanent residence under Directive 73/148/EEC because he is not lawfully resident in the Community, does a refusal to grant a relative a residence permit for permanent residence thus restrict the right of the citizen of the Union to freedom of establishment under Article 43 EC?

                           d.

                           If a relative of a citizen of the Union, who is a national of a non-Member State, cannot benefit from the right to permanent residence under Directive 73/148/EEC because he is not lawfully resident in the Community, is the right of the citizen of the Union to freedom of establishment under Article 43 EC restricted if the relatives of the citizen of the Union are deported because an application for a national residence permit cannot be accepted after entry into Sweden?

               2

                           a.

                           Is Article 1(d) of Directive 73/148/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that ‘dependence’ means that a relative of a citizen of the Union is economically dependent on the citizen of the Union to attain the lowest acceptable standard of living in his country of origin or country where he is normally resident?

                           b.

                           Is Article 6(b) of Directive 73/148/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may require a relative of a citizen of the Union who claims to be dependent on the citizen of the Union or his/her spouse to produce documents, in addition to the undertaking given by the citizen of the Union, which prove that there is a factual situation of dependence?


title: Action brought on 6 September 1996 by Giovanni Ballone Burini against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case T-138/96)

text:
26 . 10 . 96           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 318 /23
to be found in Article 2 ( 2 ) of the Regulation, applied to               In support of the application it is contended that the
trade marks containing the word ' butter'. Consequently, the               allegedly confusing syllables 'Voi ' in the trade marks do
Commission         informed         the   Finnish     Permanent            not establish any reference or connection whatsoever
Representation that the trade marks 'Voimariini ' and                      with butter outside the Member State where the said
'Voilevi ' may no longer be used , nothwithstanding their                  products have, until now, exclusively been sold, namely
registration long before the Regulation entered into force on              Finland .
1 January 1996 .
                                                                       Furthermore, in Finland the trade marks have been used for
— Annulment of the Commission Decision                                 such a long time, with all necessary and relevant
                                                                       clarifications as to the exact nature of the product, that there
                                                                       is no risk of confusion .
    The applicant claims that the Decision should be
    annulled on the following grounds :
    — there is an infringement of essential procedural
         requirements, in that the Decision was taken
         unilaterally without Valio being given any right to be
         heard in order to make its view known to the                  Action brought on 6 September 1996 by Giovanni Ballone
         Commission ,                                                  Burini against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                Communities
    — the Decision is based on an erroneous interpretation                                      Case T-138/96 )
         of the Regulation in that the Regulation does not                                       ( 96/C 318 /41 )
         apply to trade marks, which are to be distinguished
         from sales descriptions,
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
    — Valio 's trade marks should be entitled to derogations
         under Article 2 ( 2 ) of the Regulation, which relates to     An action against the Court of Justice of the European
         products the exact nature of which is clear from the          Communities was brought before the Court of First
         traditional user,                                             Instance of the European Communities on 6 September
                                                                       1996 by Giovanni Ballone Burini , represented by Giancarlo
    — the Decision is also obviously disproportionate .                Piersimoni, of the Ancona Bar, Italy, with an address for
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the address of Marco Pantanetti ,
— Plea of illegality                                                   17 rue de Dudelange, Kayl .
    Alternatively, if the Court of First Instance finds that the       The applicant claims that the Court should :
    Decision is compatible with Regulation ( EC )
    No 2991 /94, Valio wishes to invoke the plea of illegality         — declare unlawful and therefore annul the decision of
    provided for in Article 184 of the EC Treaty on the                    18 July 1996 of the Selection Board rejecting his
    following grounds :                                                    application to take part in General Competition No
                                                                           CJ/A/ 11 at the Court of Justice of the European
    — the Regulation should have been based on                             Communities ,
         Article 100a or Article 235 of the Treaty and not ( or
         at least not exclusively ) on Article 43 ,                    — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the
                                                                           proceedings .
    — the Regulation infringes the principle of legal
         certainty by broadening, to an extent that is unclear,
         the definition of ' sales description ', which is clearly     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
         set out in Directive 79/ 112/EC relating to the
         labelling of foodstuffs ,                                     The applicant challenges the decision of the Selection Board
                                                                       not to admit him to General Competition No CJ/A/ 1 1
    — the Regulation, which imposes an a priori ban on the             ( administrators with Italian legal training ) on the following
         use of certain trade marks, discriminates against             ground : 'the candidate does not satisfy the language
         holders of trade marks for spreadable fats in                 requirement provided for at paragraph 3B ( 2 ) of the notice
         comparison with holders of trade marks for other              of competition which states that, in the interests of the
         foodstuffs covered by Directive 79/ 112/EC which              service, good knowledge of French is required .' The
         imposes no a priori ban but requires that all the             candidate indicated in his application form that his
         circumstances under which a specific product is sold          knowledge of French was only ' average'. According to the
         are to be taken into account,                                 Selection Board , fulfilment of that requirement should have
                                                                       been declared when submitting the application , that is by
    — the Regulation also infringes the rule of                        28 September 1995 .
         proportionality, given that the provisions of
         Directive 79/ 112/EC relating to misleading                   The applicant seeks the annulment of the abovementioned
         statements show that it is possible to achieve the            decision on the grounds of misuse of powers, its illogical and
         same aim of consumer protection without                       irrational nature, lack of a statement of reasons, mistaken
         necessarily having recourse to an overall ban on the          assumptions and distortion of facts . The application is
         further use of certain trade marks .                          based on the following grounds :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 318/24            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26 . 10 . 96
— the applicant claims that the indication ' average ' rather          — order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs .
    than 'good ' knowledge of French is intended merely for
    guidance and is not a requirement for admission to the
    competition. Paragraph 8 ( 3 ) of the notice of                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    competition states that the third written test will 'consist
    of a number of questions intended to asess the ability to
    understand a text drafted in the applicant's second                Six French undertakings manufacturers of cheese preserved
    language' ( in this case, English ), while paragraph IX 2 ( a )    in brine made exclusively from ewe's milk which it markets
    specifies that knowledge of French will ' only' be taken           regularly as ' feta ', which is, moreover, a registered trade
    into account in the oral test .                                    mark, and a trade association whose members are the ewe's
                                                                       milk producers and the feta processors, challenge
                                                                       Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 on the
Accordingly, marking the appropriate box under 'good' or               registration of geographical indications and designations of
'average' does not amount to an essential requirement for              origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
admission to the competition but rather a mere criterion for           Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 and which provides
guidance to be taken into account when assessing                       that the name ' feta ' consitutes a registered designation of
knowledge of French in the oral test. Thus, supporting                 origin reserved to the Greek State .
documents relating to knowledge of languages are not
requested in the notice of competition, which leads to the
assumption that, on the contrary, such knowledge may be                Tha applicants consider that the Commission should not
verified only in the tests .                                           have agreed to apply as it did the exception provided for
                                                                       pursuant to Article 17 of the abovementioned Regulation
                                                                       inasmuch as the Greek application did not meet the
                                                                       conditions required by that Article since it relied on
                                                                       protection recently afforded at national level after the
                                                                       Council Regulation entered into force .
                                                                       The applicants further state that, according to the
                                                                       information available to them, feta cheese does not meet the
Action brought on 10 September 1996 by Société des caves               criteria laid down in order to benefit from protection as a
et des producteurs réunis de Roquefort and Others against              protected designation on the grounds that:
      the Commission of the European Communities
                        ( Case T-140/96 )
                                                                      — ' feta ' does not describe a product which originates in a
                          ( 96/C 318/42 )                                   specific region or place,
               (Language of the case: French)                         — the production, processing and preparation of 'feta ' do
                                                                            not take place in a defined geographical area ,
An action against the Commission of the European                      — the quality or characteristics of ' feta ' are not essentially
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           or exclusively due to a particular geographical
Instance of the European Communities on 10 September                       environment with its inherent natural and human
1996 by Société des caves et des producteurs réunis de                      factors, and
Roquefort, established in Roquefort-sur-Salzon ( France ),
Société fromagère corse, established in Bastia ( France ),
Société pour la valorisation du lait de Brebis du grand               — ' feta ' is a name that has become generic which , as such,
Sud-Ouest, established in La Canourgue ( France ),                         may not be protected .
Compagnie des fromages, established in Vire ( France ),
Fromager du Causse, established in Roquefort ( France ),
Alliance agro producteurs de lait de brebis et des industriels        Moreover, the applicants claim that, by accepting Greece's
de Roquefort ( France )- and Confédération générale des               application the Commission has disregarded the principal
producteurs de lait de brebis et des industriels de Roquefort,        objectives which had been entrusted to it by the Council,
established in Millau ( France ), represerited by Frédéric            namely, to improve the common agricultural policy in the
Ancel , of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in              interest of both producers and consumers . On the one hand,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 rue                  Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands produce and
Béatrix de Bourbon .                                                  market cheese under the disputed name, whereas Greece
                                                                      manufactures only half of the Community production . On
                                                                      the other, consumers are not better protected since the term
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          ' feta ' covers cheese prepared from ewe's, goat's or cow's
                                                                      milk or even a mixture of all three .
— annul Article 1 of Commission Regulation ( EC )
    No 1 107/96 of 12 June 1 996 in so far as it registers the
    name ' feta ' as a protected designation of origin,


title: Case T-314/06: Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Whirlpool Europe v Council

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/67

         Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Whirlpool Europe v Council
   (Case T-314/06)
   (2006/C 326/141)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Whirlpool Europe Srl (Comerio, Italy) (represented by: M. Bronckers and F. Louis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the definitive regulation annulled insofar as the definition of the product concerned/like product does not include all large-volume refrigerator-freezer units with at least two external doors placed side-by-side;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who is a domestic appliance producer in Europe of among others refrigerators, seeks the partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1289/2006 of 25 August 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain side-by-side refrigerators originating in the Republic of Korea (1).
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Community institutions violated Article 253 EC by providing inadequate and insufficient reasoning on the exclusion of three-door side-by-side refrigerators from the issue of product scope, especially in light of the circumstances of the case.
   The applicant further submits that the Community institutions violated the applicant's right to be heard with regard to the last-minute exclusion of three-door side-by-side refrigerators from the scope of the product concerned.
   Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Community institutions violated Article 15(2) of the Basic Regulation (2) by failing to consult the Advisory Committee on time on the exclusion of three-door side-by-side refrigerators from the scope of the product concerned.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the Community institutions violated the Basic Regulation in their approach to defining the product scope on the basis of physical characteristics without regard to consumer perception.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 236, p. 11.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case T-337/09: Order of the General Court of 6 February 2012 — Colegio Oficial de Farmacéuticos de Valencia v Commission

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/26

         Order of the General Court of 6 February 2012 — Colegio Oficial de Farmacéuticos de Valencia v Commission
   (Case T-337/09) (1)

   2012/C 80/44
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case T-217/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2006 — Marker Völkl v OHIM — Icon Health & Fitness Italia (MOTION)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/46

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2006 — Marker Völkl v OHIM — Icon Health & Fitness Italia (MOTION)
   (Case T-217/05) (1)

   (2006/C 212/79)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret by order of 8 June 1995 in the case of Fantask A/S and Others v. Industrieministeriet (Erhvervsministeriet) (Case C-188/95)

text:
2 . 9 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 229/ 11
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                    in Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Directive 69/335/EEC concerning
                           of 11 July 1995                              indirect taxes on the raising of capital ( 1 ), or are the
                                                                        individual Member States free to decide what may be
       in Case C-266/94: Commission of the European                     regarded as 'fees or dues ' for a specific service ?
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/44/EEC —
Reasoned opinion — Failure to take account of                           Question 2 :
observations submitted by the Member State in response to
             the formal notice — Inadmissibility)                       May the basis for the calculation of duties charged under
                               95/C 229/20 )                            Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Directive 69/335/EEC by a Member
                                                                        State for registration of formation or increase in capital of a
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                         public limited company or a private limited company
                                                                        include the following types of costs or some of them:
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                      — The cost of salaries and pension contributions for
                                                                             officials not involved in effecting the registration, such as
In Case C-266/94 : Commission of the European                                the registration authority's administrative staff or staff
Communities ( Agent: Blanca Rodriguez Galindo ) v.                           of the registration authority or other authorities who are
Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez                    engaged on preparatory legal work in the field of
and Miguel Bravo-Ferrer Delgado, Abogado del Estado ) —                      company law.
application for a declaration that by not adopting all the
necessary measures to comply with Council Directive
92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the application of open                     — The cost of effecting registration of other matters
network provision to leasedjines (2 ), the Kingdom of Spain                  relating to companies, in respect of which the Member
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive — the              State has determined that no specific consideration is to
Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,                     be paid.
F. A. Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann,
Presidents of Chamber, G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris, J. C.            — The cost of performing duties, other than registration,
Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward                           required of the registration authority in pursuance of
( Rapporteur ), J. P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and                              company legislation and legislation related thereto, such
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General;                         as examination of companies' accounts and supervision
R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 1995 , the                     of companies' book-keeping.
operative part of which is as follows :
                                                                        — Payment of interest and depreciation of all capital costs
I. the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                             which are regarded by the registration authority as
                                                                             concerning the field of company law and related fields of
2 . the Commission shall pay the costs.                                      law.
(') OJ No C 304 , 20 . 10 . 1994 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 165 , 19 . 6 . 1992 , p . 27 .                            — The cost of official journeys not connected with the
                                                                              specific work of registration .
                                                                        — The cost of the registration authority's external
                                                                              dissemination of information and guidance not
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the 0stre Landsret                   connected with the specific work of registration, such as
by order of 8 June 1995 in the case of Fantask A/S and                        lecturing, preparation of articles and brochures and
      Others v. Industrieministeriet ( Erhvervsministeriet)                   holding of meetings with trade organizations and other
                                                                              interested groups .
                          ( Case C-188/95 )
                             ( 95/C 229/21 )
                                                                        Question 3 :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the 0stre Landsret                  ( a ) Is Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) of Directive 69/335/EEC to be
( Eastern Regional Court) of 8 June 1995 , which was                           interpreted as meaning that a Member State is
received at the Court Registry on 15 June 1995 , for a                         precluded from fixing standardized charges by rules
preliminary ruling in the case of Fantask A/S and Others                       valid without limitation of time ?
v. Industrieministeriet ( Erhvervsministeriet ) ( Ministry
of Industry — Ministry of Trade ) on the following
questions :
                                                                        ( b ) If not, is a Member State required to adjust its scale of
                                                                               charges every year or at other fixed intervals ?
Question 1 :
                                                                        (c ) Is it of any significance for the answer whether charges
Does Community law impose requirements upon the                                are fixed in proportion to the amount of the capital to
Member States' delimitation of the concept of ' fees or dues'                  be raised, as notified for registration ?
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/ 12             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
Question 4 :                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
                                                                       Hamburg by order of 7 June 1995 in the case of A. Moksel
Is Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) in conjunction with Article 10 ( 1 ) of                  AG v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the                                      Case C-223 /95
amount charged as consideration for a specific service —                                           95 /C 229/22 )
such as for example registration of the formation or increase
in capital of a public limited company or a private limited
company — is to be calculated on the basis of the actual cost          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
of the specific service — registration — or can the duty for           European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
the individual registration be fixed at for example a basic            ( Finance Court) Hamburg of 7 June 1995 , which was
charge together with 4 per mille of the nominal capital                received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1995 , for a
subscribed, so that the amount of the duty is independent of           preliminary ruling in the case of A. Moksel AG v.
the registration authority's time used and other costs                 Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ) Hamburg Jonas
necessary for effecting the registration ?                             on the following question :
                                                                       Is Article 8 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/87 ( ] ) in the
Question 5:
                                                                       version of 27 November 1987, as rectified on 8 December
                                                                       1988 , in conjunction with Article 9 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty to
Is Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) in conjunction with Article 10 ( 1 ) of      be interpreted as meaning that those provisions also cover
Directive 69/335/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the             products which were imported into the Federal Republic of
Member State in calculating any amount to be recovered                 Germany from the former German Democratic Republic in
must work on the basis that the duty must reflect the cost of          the period from 24 May to 22 June 1990 pursuant to an
the specific service at the time at which the service is               exceptional authorization for the processing of transit-trade
performed, or is the Member State entitled to make a                   goods and exported to a third country on 10 January
comprehensive assessment over a longer period, for example             1991 ?
an accounting year or within the period in which it will
be possible under national law to assert a claim for
                                                                       (') OJ No L 351 , 14 . 12 . 1987, p. 1 .
recovery ?
Question 6:
If national law contains a general principle that, in
determining claims for recovery of charges made without                Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
the requisite authority, importance should be attached to              Circondariale di Pescara — Sezione Distaccata di San
the fact that the charge was made in pursuance of rules                Valentino in A.C. — by order of 15 December 1994 in the
which have been in force over a long period without either                     criminal proceedings against Anselmo Savini
the authorities or other parties having been aware that the                                    ( Case C-224/95
charge was unauthorized, will Community law preclude
dismissal on those grounds of an action for recovery of                                           ( 95/C 229/23 )
charges levied contrary to Directive 69/335/EEC ?
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Question 7:                                                           European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                        Circondariale di Pescara — Sezione Distaccata di San
                                                                       Valentino in A.C. ( Magistrate's Court, Pescara; Separate
Does Community law make it impossible under national                    Division of San Valentino in AC ) of 15 December 1994,
law for the authorities of a Member State, in cases of claims          which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June 1995 ,
for recovery concerning charges made contrary to Directive              for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against
 69/335/EEC , to contend and establish that national                    Anselmo Savini on the following questions :
 limitation periods start to run from a time at which
 an unlawful implementation of Directive 69/335/EEC
 occurred ?                                                             1 . Does EEC legislation provide for the exclusion from the
                                                                            definition of waste and the relevant rules relating to the
                                                                            protection of health ( and ) of the environment of
 Question 8:                                                                substances and objects which are capable of economic
                                                                            reutilization ?
 Does Article 10 ( 1 ) in conjunction with Article 12 ( 1 ) ( e ) of
 Directive 69/335/EEC as interpreted in the foregoing                   2 . Does the concept of waste arising out of Council
 questions result in rights on which citizens in the individual             Directive 156/91 /EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
 Member States may rely before the national courts ?                        Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (') and Council
                                                                            Directive     689/91 /EEC     of  12  December   1991     on
 (') OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .                                 dangerous waste ( 2 ) and Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                            No 259/93 ( 3 ) cover any substance which the addressee
                                                                            disposes of, has decided to dispose of or is under a duty
                                                                            to dispose of, regardless of the fact that the substance to


title: Case C-303/13 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2013 in Case T-92/11: Jørgen Andersen v European Commission

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/19

         Appeal brought on 3 June 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 20 March 2013 in Case T-92/11: Jørgen Andersen v European Commission
   (Case C-303/13 P)
   2013/C 252/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: L. Armati, T. Maxian Rusche, agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Jørgen Andersen, Kingdom of Denmark, Danske Statsbaner (DSB)

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 March 2013, notified to the Commission on 22 March 2013, in Case T-92/11 Jorgen Andersen v European Commission;
               and

               —

               reject the application to annul Commission Decision 2011/3/EU (1) of 24 February 2010 concerning public transport service contracts between the Danish Ministry of Transport and Danske Statsbaner (Case C 41/08 (ex NN 35/08)); and

               —

               order the applicant at first instance to pay the costs;

         alternatively,

               —

               rule that the third plea at first instance is not well founded and refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the first and second pleas at first instance;

               —

               and reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission advances a single ground of appeal: violation of Articles 108(2) and (3), 288 and 297(1) TFEU, by finding that the Commission applied Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (2) retroactively.
   The Commission considers that the assessment of the aid in question on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 did not entail a retroactive application of that Regulation but is consistent with the principle of immediate application under which a provision of Union law applies from the time it enters into force to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rule.
   The case-law of the Court of Justice distinguishes, with regards to retroactivity, between a definitively-established legal situation (to which the new rule does not apply) and temporary situations which arose under the old rule, but are still on-going (to which the new rule applies).
   The Commission considers that the General Court has erred in law by considering that State aid granted by a Member State in violation of the notification and standstill obligation constitutes a definitively established legal situation, rather than a temporary situation. It follows from the rules and case law on recovery of unlawful aid that the recipient of such aid cannot be considered to have definitively acquired the aid until such time as the Commission approves it and the approval decision has become final. In view of the mandatory nature of the supervision of State aid by the Commission under Article 108 TFEU, undertakings to which aid has been granted may not, in principle, entertain a legitimate expectation that the aid is lawful unless it has been granted in compliance with the procedure laid down in that article.
   Finally, the Commission also observes that the judgment under appeal is in open and direct conflict with earlier rulings of the Court of Justice on the same question.

      (1)  OJ L 7, p. 1

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 1191/69 and No 1107/70
   OJ L 315, p. 1.


title: Case T-413/13: Action brought on 9 August 2013 — City Cycle Industries v Council

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/28

         Action brought on 9 August 2013 — City Cycle Industries v Council
   (Case T-413/13)
   2013/C 274/44
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: City Cycle Industries (Colombo, Sri Lanka) (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Partially annul Articles 1(1) and 1(3) of the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 (1) as far as they extend the anti-dumping duty to the applicant and deny the applicant’s exemption request;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter; and

               —

               Take any other measures that the Court considers appropriate.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission and the Council failed to demonstrate circumvention with respect to Sri Lanka imports and thus committed a manifest error of assessment, as:

                           —

                           The conclusion that a change in the pattern of trade had occurred is manifestly erroneous;

                           —

                           The Council wrongly asserted that Sri Lanka producers, in particular the applicant, were transshipping bicycles from China to EU.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council wrongly found that the applicant was non-cooperative and that such non-cooperation justified a denial of its exemption, as:

                           —

                           The applicant cooperated to the best of its ability;

                           —

                           The finding of non-cooperation is unwarranted;

                           —

                           The Council’s finding of non-cooperation constitutes a failure to state reasons;

                           —

                           The Council failed to take into account additional information provided by the applicant.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s due process rights have been violated in the investigation, as:

                           —

                           The Implementing Regulation violates the principles of diligence and sound administration;

                           —

                           The incomplete file shared with the applicant amounts to a violation of the applicant’s rights of defence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the denial to grant the applicant an exemption constitutes a violation of the principle of equal treatment, as:

                           —

                           The Commission discriminated against the applicant by granting an exemption to similarly-placed exporters and by refusing the applicant’s exemption request;

                           —

                           The applicant was wrongly granted the same treatment as completely non-cooperating producers.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Implementing Regulation’s findings on injury and dumping are inconsistent with the basic anti-dumping regulation, as:

                           —

                           The finding of an undermining of the remedial effect of the anti-dumping duty is erroneous.

                           —

                           The finding of dumping in the implementing regulation is also erroneous.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not (OJ 2013 L 153, p. 1)


title: Case C-380/06: Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/25

         Action brought on 15 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-380/06)
   (2006/C 294/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima and S. Pardo Quintillán, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by authorising, under Law 3/2004 of 29 December 2004 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, a period of 90 days for the payment of specific staple foods and postponing the entry into force of certain provisions until 1 July 2006, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(1)(2) and (4) of Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (1);

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Directive 2000/35/EC does not provide for the partial or gradual application of its provisions in any circumstances. Accordingly the postponement until 1 July 2006 is contrary to Article 3(1) and (2) thereof. It also infringes Article 3(4) which provides that the Member States are to ensure that, in the interests of creditors and of competitors, adequate and effective means exist to prevent the continued use of terms which are manifestly unfair.
   Thus the postponement of the application of the maximum period of 60 days cannot be regarded as an additional requirement in favour of creditors, nor is it in any event acceptable, in particular on account of the fact that national legislation to transpose Directive 2000/35/EC ought to have been brought into force before August 2002.

      (1)  OJ L 200 of 8.8.2000. p. 35.


title: Case C-246/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain) lodged on 2 June 2006 — Josefa Velasco Navarro v Fondo de Garantia Salarial (Fogasa)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras (Spain) lodged on 2 June 2006 — Josefa Velasco Navarro v Fondo de Garantia Salarial (Fogasa)
   (Case C-246/06)
   (2006/C 212/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Josefa Velasco Navarro

      Defendant: Fondo de Garantia Salarial (Fogasa)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Where it has been found by the national court that the domestic legislation, which is incomplete, did not comply, on 8 October 2005, with Directive 2002/74 (1) and its interpretation by the Court of Justice (with regard to the Community principle of equal treatment) in the order of 13 December 2005 (Case C-177/05), must that directive be regarded as having direct effect as regards FOGASA, the State guarantee institution, with effect from the following day (9 October 2005)?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is the direct effect of Directive 2002/74/EC to apply also, because it is most beneficial to the worker (and least beneficial to the State which has failed to fulfil its obligations), to a declared state of insolvency, following a court conciliation agreement not provided for in the incomplete domestic legislation — between the date of the entry into force of the directive (8 October 2002) and the date by which the Spanish State was to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the provisions of the directive (8 October 2005)?

      (1)  Directive 2002/74 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10)


title: Case C-484/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — Fatma Pehlivan v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Family reunification — First indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Child of a Turkish worker who lived together with that worker for more than three years, but married before the expiry of the three-year period laid down in that provision — National law calling into question, on that ground, the residence permit of the person concerned)

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 June 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage (Netherlands)) — Fatma Pehlivan v Staatssecretaris van Justitie
   (Case C-484/07) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Family reunification - First indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Child of a Turkish worker who lived together with that worker for more than three years, but married before the expiry of the three-year period laid down in that provision - National law calling into question, on that ground, the residence permit of the person concerned)
   2011/C 232/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, sitting at Roermond

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fatma Pehlivan

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, sitting at Roermond — Interpretation of the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey — Child of a Turkish worker who resided with that worker for at least three years but who married a Turkish national in Turkey during that period without informing the competent authorities

      Operative part of the judgment

   The first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, must be interpreted as meaning that:

               —

               that provision precludes legislation of a Member State under which a family member properly authorised to join a Turkish migrant worker who is already duly registered as belonging to the labour force of that State loses the enjoyment of the rights based on family reunification under that provision for the reason only that, having attained majority, he or she gets married, even where he or she continues to live with that worker during the first three years of his or her residence in the host Member State;

               —

               a Turkish national who, like the applicant in the main proceedings, comes within that provision may validly claim a right of residence in the host Member State on the basis thereof, notwithstanding the fact that he or she got married before the expiry of the three-year period laid down in that first indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, in the case where, during the whole of that period, he or she actually lived under the same roof as the Turkish migrant worker through whom he or she was admitted to the territory of that State on the ground of family reunification.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case C-112/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/80/EC — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Compensation to crime victims — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/16

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-112/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/80/EC - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Compensation to crime victims - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2008/C 22/31)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande and E. De Persio, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, and D. Del Gaizo, avocat)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims (OJ 2004 L 261, p. 15)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117 of 26.5.2007.


title: Case F-75/13: Action brought on 1 August 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/34

         Action brought on 1 August 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-75/13)
   2013/C 274/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, É. Marchal, J.-N. Louis, and S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision to not grant the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the PMO of 4 October 2012 refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance in accordance with Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/5

      Criteria for assigning cases to Chambers
      (2010/C 288/08)
      On 20 September 2010, the General Court laid down the following criteria for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from 20 September 2010 to 31 August 2011, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure:

                  1.

                  Appeals against the decisions of the Civil Service Tribunal shall be assigned to the Appeal Chamber as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.

                  2.

                  Cases other than those referred to in paragraph 1 above shall be assigned to Chambers of three Judges as soon as the application has been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure.
                  Cases referred to in this paragraph shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas:

                              —

                              for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;

                              —

                              for cases concerning intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

                              —

                              for all other cases.

            In applying those rotas, the Chamber composed of four Judges which is sitting with three Judges shall be taken into consideration twice at each third turn.
      The President of the General Court may derogate from the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.


title: Case T-7/02: Action brought on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
4.5.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 109/47
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         European Communities on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation
                                                                        AG, represented by Mr Axel Kockläuner of Meissner, Bolte &
                                                                        Partner, Munich (Germany).
The applicants are both part of the Omega group, which has a
substantial interest in aviation and the provision of such
services both within and without the European Community.                A further party to the proceedings before the Board of appeal
The Omega group has the intention of constructing and                   was Jesmar S.A.
operating a second terminal at Dublin airport which will
provide direct competition to the present terminal operated by
Aer Rianta, the Irish state-owned company that owns and
operates Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports.                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
By letter dated 4 December 1998, the applicants lodged a                      17 October 2001 in Case R 1123/2000-1 relating to
complaint with the Commission concerning alleged State aid                    Opposition Proceedings no. B 68587 and Community
in favour of Aer Rianta. It was alleged that aid had been                     trade mark application no. 50252 ‘Colette Zapf Creation’
granted, in particular, by a transfer of assets from the Minister
of Finance to Aer Rianta at a significant undervalue. On
5 October 2001, the Commission took a decision on the
complaint. In the second indent of Part 6 of this decision, the
Commission stated that the contested transfer of assets was             Pleas in law and main arguments
not a grant of aid.
                                                                        Applicant for the Com-        Zapf Creation AG
The applicants challenge the legality of this decision on three         munity trade mark:
grounds:
                                                                        The Community trade           The figurative mark ‘Colette Zapf
                                                                        mark concerned:               Creation’ for certain goods in
—     the Commission should have proceeded to open the                                                class 28
      formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 4(4)
      of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999;
                                                                        Proprietor of the right to    Jesmar S.A.
                                                                        the trade mark or sign
—     the Commission misdirected itself as a matter of law in           asserted by way of oppo-
      determining that the transfer of assets at an undervalue          sition in the opposition
      did not constitute State aid within the meaning of                proceedings:
      Article 87(1) EC Treaty;
                                                                        Trade mark or sign            The Spanish word mark ‘Colette’
—     the Commission gave an inadequate statement of reasons            asserted by way of oppo-      for certain goods in class 28
      contrary to the requirements of Article 253 EC Treaty.            sition in the opposition
                                                                        proceedings:
                                                                        Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the opposition by
                                                                        sition Division:              Jesmar S.A.
                                                                        Decision of the Board of      Admission of the appeal lodged
                                                                        Appeal:                       by Jesmar S.A.
Action brought on 14 January 2002 by Zapf Creation AG
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                    Grounds of claim:             Violation of Article 43, section 2,
                             Market                                                                   of Regulation 40/94 (1) since there
                                                                                was no satisfactory proof of the
                                                                                genuine use of the opposing
                          (Case T-7/02)                                                               trademark and violation of
                                                                                Article 8, Section 1 b) of Regu-
                                                                                lation 40/94 since there is no
                        (2002/C 109/94)                                                               danger of confusion.
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                            Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


4 . 5 . 96               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133/ 19
Action brought on 22 March 1996 by the Commission of                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                       Supremo Tribunal Administrative ( Second Division, Tax
                                 Spain                                Cases ) of 14 February 1996 in the case of ICT — Industria e
                           Case C-92/96 )                                       Comércio Têxtil, SA v. Fazenda Publica
                           ( 96/C 133/41 )                                                    ( Case C-93/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/42 )
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
22 March 1996 by the Commission of the European                       European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                       Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court), Second
Principal Legal Adviser, and Fernando Castillo de la Torre,           Division, Tax Cases, of 15 February 1996 , which was
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in                  received at the Court Registry on 25 March 1996 , for a
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                  preliminary ruling in the case of ICT — Industria e
                                                                      Comércio Têxtil , SA v. Fazenda Publica ( Revenue
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      Authority ) on the following questions :
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          1 . Is the increase ( of 1 % for each month that elapses
                                                                          without payment being made, following the 30th day
                                                                          after the arrival of the goods in the customs territory of
— declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to              the Community ) provided for in Article 1 ( 3 ) of Council
     ensure that the quality of inshore bathing waters                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 of 23 March 1992
     conforms to the limit values set in Article 3 of Council             imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
     Directive 76/ 160/EEC ('), the Kingdom of Spain has                  cotton yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey (')
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Council          applicable to the free-at-Community-frontier price
     Directive 76/ 160/EEC of 8 December 1975 and under                   whenever it is agreed that the price is payable on a date
     Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty; and                             falling after that 30th day ?
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                       2 . If the answer to the foregoing question cannot be
                                                                          unconditionally affirmative, as a result of the need for a
                                                                          distinction to be drawn, is the said increase applicable in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           circumstances like those of this case ( see the facts
                                                                          proved ) where the price of the imported goods, agreed as
                                                                          payable in 90 days, was about 2,3 % ( in one case ) and
There is no provision in the Act of Accession of Spain                    2,5 % ( in another case ) greater than the price payable
which allows a postponement of the application of                         CAD ( cash against documents )?
Directive 76/ 160/EEC, so that, in accordance with
Article 395 of that Act of Accession and with Article 4 ( 1 ) of      3 . If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative ,
Directive 76/160/EEC, the quality of bathing water is to                  must that increase be applied to the price corresponding
conform to the limit values set in the Directive as from
                                                                          to payment CAD or to the price agreed as payable in
 1 January 1986 , since Community law is mandatory from                   90 days ?
the moment of accession . The applicant points out in this
respect that the Commission has in any event given a
considerable period in which to comply with the obligations           (>) OJ No L 82 , 1992 , p . 1 .
under the Directive .
In any event, the Spanish State has not relied upon the
derogations provided for in Articles 4 ( 3 ), 5 ( 2 ) and 8 of
Directive 76/ 160/EEC . Thus, non-compliance with the
values set in accordance with Article 3 of Directive
 76/160/EEC is tantamount to a failure to fulfil obligations                Removal from the register of Case C-110/92 ( 1 )
under Article 4 of the Directive . In any event, the applicant                                   ( 96/C 133/43 )
recalls that the problem of non-compliance with the
parameters given in Directive 76/160/EEC may also be
resolved by declaring bathing areas unfit for bathing where           By order of 23 January 1996 the President of the Court of
they do not conform to the parameters given in the                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Directive .                                                           from the register of Case C-l 10/92 : Federal Republic of
                                                                      Germany v . Commission of the European Communities .
 (') OJ No L 31 , 5 . 2 . 1976 , p . 1 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 124 , 16 . 5 . 1992 .


title: Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-436/93 to T-441/93

text:
11 . 11 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 299/ 19
The applicant submits that the Council 's refusal violates the               Removal from the register of Case T- 112/92 ( ] )
fundamental rights of access to the European Union                                                  ( 95 /C 299/33 )
Institutions ' documents, as well as the principle of
protection of legitimate expectations and Articles 4(1 ) and                          (Language of the case: English )
4 ( 2 ) of Council Decision 93/73 1 /EC inasmuch as it
wrongfully applies the criteria for refusal laid down in said         By order of 11 July 1995 the President of the Fourth
provisions . It considers furthermore that the Council 's             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
refusal should be annulled on the ground of its failure to            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
state reasons for the refusal .
                                                                      T- 1 1 2/92 : John Cooney v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Comm unities .
                                                                      (') Q | No C : 34 , 6 . 2 . 1 993 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 28 September 1995                                     Removal from the register of Case T-425/93 (')
in Case T-95 /94 : Chambre Syndicale Nationale des                                                  ( 95 /C 299/34 )
Entreprises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
Brink's France SARL v. Commission of the European                                     (Language of the case: English )
                       Communities ( ' )
(State aid — Complaint by a competitor — Failure to initiate          By order of 9 August 1995 the President of the First
the investigation procedure — Right to a fair hearing —               Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
                    Action for annulment)                             Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                          ( 95 /C 299/32 )                            from the register of Case T-425/93 : David Wilcox v.
                                                                      Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (') OJ No C : 2.38 , 2 . 9 . 1993 .
In Case T-95/94 : Chambre Syndicale Nationale des
Entreprises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
Brink 's France SARL, represented by Jean-Michel Payre, of
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grande-Rue , v.                            Removal from the register of Case T-430/93 ( )
Commission of the European Communities ( agents : Michel                                            ( 95 /C 299/35 )
Nolin and Ben Smulders ), supported by the French Republic
( agents : Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ) —                              (Language of the case: Erench)
application for the annulment of the Commission decision
of 31 December 1993 rejecting the applicants ' request for a          By order of 11 August 1995 the President of the First
declaration by the Commission that the French Republic                Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
has infringed Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty by granting            Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
aid to Securipost SA — the Court of First Instance                    from the register of Case T-430/93 : Jean Trelhu v. Council
( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ), composed of                 of the European Union and Commission of the European
K. Lenaerts , President, and R. Schintgen , C. P. Briet,              Communities .
R. Garcia-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September 1995 , in             (') OJ No C 54 , 25 . 5 . 1993 .
which it :
 1 . annuls the Commission decision of 31 December 1993
     rejecting the applicants ' request for a declaration by the
     Commission that the French Republic has infringed                                   Removal from the register of
     Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty by granting aid to                         Joined Cases T-436/93 to T -441 /93 (')
     Securipost;                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/36 )
2 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay                             (Language of the case: English)
     the costs of the applicants;
                                                                      By order of 12 July 1995 the President of the Fourth
 3 . orders the Erench Republic to bear its own costs .               Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
 (') O J No C 103 , 11.4 . 1994 .
                                                                      from the register of Joined Cases T-436/93 to T-441 /93 :
                                                                      British Petroleum Company pic , Barclays Bank pic , Flanson
                                                                      pic , Lucas Industries Public Limited Company , Mars UK
                                                                       Limited , Mars G.B. Limited , Intercontinental Trading
 ---pagebreak--- No C 299/20           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 11 . 95
Limited, Effem Management Services Limited, Vickers                        ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Public Limited Company v. Council of the European Union                                       of 9 August 1995
and Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                      in Case T-541/93 : Sean Coughlan and Others v. Council of
                                                                                the European Union (')
(') OJ No C 24 , 31 . 1 . 1992 .
                                                                                (Partial removal from register)
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/40 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
     Removal from the register of Case T-5 11 /93 ( )
                                                                      In Case T-541 /93 : Sean Coughlan , James Connaughton,
                          ( 95/C 299/37 )                             Gregory Walsh, Patrick Heffernan , Thomas Fitzsimons,
                                                                      Patrick Wall, Patrick Griffin and John Harris, represented
              (Language of the case: English)                         by James O'Reilly SC , of the Bar of Ireland, and by Philippa
                                                                      Watson, Barrister, of the Bar of Ireland , instructed by Oliver
By order of 9 August 1995 the President of the First                  Ryan-Purcell, Solicitor, with an address for service in
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                Luxembourg at the Fyfe Business Centre , 29 Rue Jean-Pierre
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Brasseur, v. Council of the European Union ( Agents : Arthur
from the register of Case T-5 11 /93 : Freda Elsie Locke and          Brautigam and Michel Bishop ), supported by Commission
Others v. Council of the European Union and Commission                of the European Communities ( Agents : Gerard Rozet and
of the European Communities .                                         Xavier Lewis ) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                      Northern Ireland ( Agents : initially J. D. Colahan, then S. T.
(') OJ No C 277, 15 . 10 . 1993 .                                     Braviner ) — application under Article 173 of the EEC
                                                                      Treaty for the annulment of Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                      No 2187/93 of 22 July 1993 providing for an offer of
                                                                      compensation to certain producers of milk and milk
                                                                      products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade
                                                                      ( OJ 1993 L 196 , p. 6 ), and in particular Articles 8 and 14
     Removal from the register of Case T-529/93 ( )                   thereof — the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                      made an order on 9 August 1995 , the operative part of
                          ( 95/C 299/38 )                             which is as follows :
              (Language of the case: English)
                                                                      1 . the names Sean Coughlan, Gregory Walsh, Patrick
                                                                           Heffernan, Patrick Wall and John Harris shall be
By order of 10 August 1995 the President of the First                      removed from the list of applicants in Case
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                     T-541 /93 ;
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-529/93 : Wallace A. Rodgers,              2 . the parties shall bear their own costs including those
Teresa McVeigh, John Rogan, Patrick O'Brien v. Council of                  relating to the interlocutory proceedings;
the European Union and Commission of the European
Communities .
                                                                      3.   the interveners shall bear their own costs .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 319 , 26 . 11 . 1993 .
     Removal from the register of Case T-540/93 ( )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-5 5 0/93 ( )
                           ( 95/C 299/39 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 299/41 )
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 August 1995 the President of the First
Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First                By order of 12 September 1995 the President of the Fourth
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-540/93 : Kathleen Early v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                   T-550/93 : Dimitrios Benecos v.           Commission of the
European Communities .                                                European Communities .
(') OJ No C 312 , 18 . 11 . 1993 .                                     (') OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 .


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 19 February 1998 in Case C-318/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): SPAR Österreichische Warenhandels AG v. Finanzlandesdirektion für Salzburg (Article 33 of the sixth Directive - Turnover taxes - Levy towards the functioning of chambers of commerce (Kammerumlage))

text:
11.4.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 113/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                                      (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 19 February 1998                                                  of 19 February 1998
in Case C-318/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling                         in Case C-8/97: Commission of the European
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): SPAR Österreichische                            Communities v. Hellenic Republic (1)
 Warenhandels AG v. Finanzlandesdirektion für Salzburg (1)
                                                                     (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations Ð
(Article 33 of the sixth Directive Ð Turnover taxes Ð                       Directive 90/434/EEC Ð Failure to transpose)
Levy towards the functioning of chambers of commerce
                      (Kammerumlage))                                                        (98/C 113/12)
                         (98/C 113/11)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-8/97: Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis) v. Hellenic
In Case C-318/96: reference to the Court pursuant to                 Republic (Agents: Paraskevi Skandolou and Nana
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Austrian                       Daphniou) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) for a                  to adopt or, in the alternative, to communicate to the
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that            Commission within the prescribed period the laws,
court between SPAR Österreichische Warenhandels AG                   regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
and Finanzlandesdirektion für Salzburg Ð on the                      comply with Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July
interpretation of Articles 17 and 33 of the sixth Council            1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                           mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating              shares concerning companies of different Member
to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value-added tax:                States (2), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
uniform basis of assessment (2) Ð the Court (Fifth                   obligations under the EC Treaty and that Directive Ð the
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
Chamber, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),             President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, P. J. G. Kapteyn,
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General;            J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), Judges; P. LeÂger,
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a            Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 19 February 1998, in which it has ruled:                 judgment on 19 February 1998, in which it:
The sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977                1. declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                     prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative
relating to turnover taxes Ð common system of value-                      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and in particular                 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system
Articles 17(2) and 33 thereof, does not preclude a levy                   of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers
such as the Kammerumlage, provided for in Article 57(1)                   of assets and exchanges of shares concerning
to (6) of the Handelskammergesetz, which is payable, by                   companies of different Member States, the Hellenic
members of chambers of commerce whose turnover                            Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
exceeds a certain amount, is calculated in principle on the               Article 12(1) therof;
basis of the VAT included in the price of the goods and
services supplied to them, and is not deductible from the
VAT payable by them on the commercial transactions
which they carry out.                                                2. orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.                                             (1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                       (2) OJ L 225, 20.8.1990, p. 1.


title: Case F-1/16: Action brought on 6 January 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/45

         Action brought on 6 January 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-1/16)
   (2016/C 111/56)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the European Parliament not to include the applicant’s name in the list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the certification exercise of 2014.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 27 March 2015 of the Appointing Authority not to include the applicant’s name in the list of officials selected to participate in the training programme for the certification exercise of 2014;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.