title: Action brought on 21 August 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-282/96)

text:
No C 294/8                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5 . 10 . 96
       in its territory, or is Article 22 to be interpreted as           prescribed for doing so . That period expired on 1 January
       meaning that such entitlement exists so long as the               1986 without the Portuguese Republic having brought into
       person concerned fulfils all other conditions of the              force the necessary provisions .
       national legislation of the country which he or she
       leaves , apart from the residence requirement ?                   (') OJ No L 265 , 5 . 10 . 1984 , p . 1 .
(') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
      application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
      self-employed persons and to members of their families moving
      within the Community ( OJ English Special Edition 1971 ( II ),
      p. 416 ).                                                          Action brought on 21 August 1996 by the Commission of
( 2 ) Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying        the European Communities against the French Republic
      down the procedure for implementing Regulation ( EEC )
      No 1408/71 ( OJ English Special Edition 1972 ( I ), p. 159 ).                                Case C-282/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/ 16 )
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                         21 August 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities , represented by Gotz zur Flausen , acting as
Action brought on 14 August 1996 by the Commission of                    Agent, assisted by J. -J. Evrard, of the Brussels Bar, with an
the European Communities against the Portuguese                          address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                Republic                                 Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                             Case C-276/96 )
                              96/C 294/ 1 5                              The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                    Council Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on
14 August 1996 by the Commission of the European                              batteries and accumulators containing certain
Communities, represented by Thomas F. Cusack and Dr                           dangerous substances ('), or by failing to notify such
Francisco de Sousa Fialho, acting as Agents, with an address                 measures, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de                    obligations under that Directive ,
la Cruz, of its Legal Service , Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.
                                                                         — order the French Republic to pay the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             Pleas in law and main arguments
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws , regulations or            Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
       administrative provisions necessary to comply with                directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved , on
       Article 3 of Council Directive 84/466/Euratom of                  each Member State to which it is addressed, Member States
       3 September 1984 laying down basic measures for the               are required to observe the time limits laid down in
       radiation protection of persons undergoing medical                directives for their transposition . That time limit expired on
       examination or treatment ('), the Portuguese Republic             18 September 1992 without the French Republic having
       has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third              brought into force the necessary provisions in order to
       paragraph of Article 161 of the Euratom Treaty and                comply with the Directive referred to in the Commission 's
       Article 7 of Directive 84/466/Euratom , in conjunction            application .
       with Article 399 of the Act concerning the conditions of
       accession of the Portuguese Republic,                             (') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .
— declare , in the alternative , that, by failing to inform the
       Commission forthwith thereof, the Portuguese Republic
       failed to fulfil its obligations under the abovementioned
       provisions ,
                                                                         Action brought on 21 August 1996 by the Commission of
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs .                         the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                Case C-283 /96 )
 Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                    ( 96/C 294/ 17 )
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                      An action against the French Republic was brought before
 paragraph of Article 161 of the Euratom Treaty requires                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 Member States to adopt the measures necessary to transpose              21 August 1996 by the Commission of the European
 directives addressed to them before the expiry of the period             Communities , represented by Gotz zur Hausen , acting as


title: Case C-124/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 March 2012 — AES-3C Maritsa Iztok I EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Plovdiv

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv (Bulgaria) lodged on 7 March 2012 — AES-3C Maritsa Iztok I EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Plovdiv
   (Case C-124/12)
   2012/C 151/34
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Plovdiv

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: AES-3C Maritsa Iztok I EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — Plovdiv

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a provision such as that in Article 70(1)(2) of the Law on value added tax according to which a taxable person does not have a right to deduct value added tax on transport services, work clothing and protective gear received and on business travel expenses incurred because those goods and services are provided free of charge to natural persons, namely employees working for the taxable person’s benefit, compatible with Articles 168(a) and 176 of Council Directive 2006/112/ЕC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, if the following circumstances are taken into account:

                           —

                           the taxable person has not concluded any contracts of employment with the employees but engages them on the basis of a contractual relationship relating to the ‘provision of staff’ with another taxable person who is the employer of the personnel;

                           —

                           the transport services received are used to transport employees from certain collection points in various places to their place of work and back and there is no organised public transport available for staff to get to and around the place of work;

                           —

                           the provision of work clothing and protective gear is required under the Labour Code and the Law on health and safety at work;

                           —

                           the deduction of VAT would not be in dispute in relation to the transport services, work clothing, protective gear and business travel expenses if those goods and services had been provided by the employer of the staff; in the present case, however, the respective acquisitions were made by a taxable person who is not the employer but, on the basis of a contract for the provision of staff, draws the benefit of the work and bears the costs associated therewith?

               2.

               Does Article 176 of Directive 2006/112 empower a Member State, on acceding to the European Union, to introduce a limitation on the exercise of the right to deduct input tax such as that under Article 70(1)(2) of the Law on value added tax — namely that ‘the goods or services are intended to be supplied free of charge’ — if the legislation in force up to the date of accession did not expressly provide for such a limitation?

               3.

               If the previous question should be answered in the affirmative, does it follow that goods and services received are intended to be ‘supplied free of charge’ if they are purchased for the purposes of economic activity but, because of their nature, in order for them to be used they have to be provided to the staff working in the taxable person’s undertaking?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-420/14: Action brought on 11 June 2014 — Wine in Black v OHIM — Quinta do Noval — Vinhos (Wine in Black)

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/33

         Action brought on 11 June 2014 — Wine in Black v OHIM — Quinta do Noval — Vinhos (Wine in Black)
   (Case T-420/14)
   2014/C 303/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wine in Black GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Bauer and V. Ahmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Quinta do Noval — Vinhos, SA (Pinhão, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Fully set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2014 in Case R 1601/2013-1;

               —

               Award the costs of the proceedings against the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Wine in Black’ for goods and services in classes 33, 35 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 9 49  071

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Quinta do Noval — Vinhos, SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘NOVAL BLACK’ for goods in class 33

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Violation of Art. 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 December 2001 in Case C-373/99: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year — Fruit and vegetables — Arable crops)

text:
6.4.2002                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 84/9
Notwithstanding what is provided in Article 6(3) of the Agreement           1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to
on Social Policy, a provision such as Article L. 12(b) of the French              transpose in full Article 7(3) of Council Directive 93/13/CEE
Civil and Military Retirement Pensions Code infringes the principle               of 5 December 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts,
of equal pay inasmuch as it excludes male civil servants who are able             the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
to prove that they assumed the task of bringing up their children                 Directive;
from entitlement to the credit which it introduces for the calculation
of retirement pensions.                                                     2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.                                                 (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                         of 24 January 2002                                                         of 6 December 2001
in Case C-372/99: Commission of the European Communi-                       in Case C-373/99: Hellenic Republic v Commission of the
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)                                               European Communities (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1995 financial year
Directive 93/13/CEE — Unfair terms in contracts concluded                               — Fruit and vegetables — Arable crops)
with consumers — Means to prevent the use of those clauses)
                                                                                (2002/C 84/16)
                            (2002/C 84/15)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-372/99, Commission of the European Communities                    In Case C-373/99: Hellenic Republic (Agents: V. Kontolaimos
(agent: P. Stancanelli) v Italian Republic (agents: initially               and I.-K. Chalkias) v Commission of the European Communi-
U. Leanza, assisted by P.G. Ferri and, subsequently, U. Leanza,             ties (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) — application for partial
assisted by G. de Bellis): Application for a declaration that, by           annulment of Commission Decision 1999/596/EC of 28 July
failing to adopt the measures necessary to:                                 1999 amending Decision 1999/187/EC on the clearance of
                                                                            the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                            expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the European
—      apply the provisions of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of               Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1999
       5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ               L 226, p. 26) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
       1993 L 95, p. 29) to all contracts concluded between                 P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward,
       consumers and sellers or suppliers;                                  A. La Pergola and L. Sevón (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano,
                                                                            Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
—      transpose the third sentence of Article 5 of that directive,         has given a judgment on 6 December 2001, in which it:
       and
—      transpose in full Articles 6(2) and 7(3) of that directive,          1.    Dismisses the application;
       the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
       under that directive,                                                2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola,                  (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber, Registrar: R. Grass, has
given a judgment on 24 January 2001, in which it has ruled:


title: Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Maurizio Gastaldello against the Committee of the Regions (Case T-97/98)

text:
C 258/38             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.8.98
Action brought on 24 June 1998 by Bureau EuropeÂen                 According to the applicant, therefore, the object of the
des Unions de Consommateurs (BEUC) against the                     present case differs from that of the application in Case
         Commission of the European Communities                    T-256/97. Whereas that case concerns the right of
                        (Case T-96/98)                             representative consumer organisations to take part in anti-
                                                                   dumping proceedings as interested parties, the present
                         (98/C 258/68)                             application refers to the validity of a regulation adopted
                                                                   following a procedure which infringes an essential
               (Language of the case: English)                     procedural requirement.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 7 of 10.1.1998, p. 21.
An action against the Commission of the European                   (2) OJ L 111 of 9.4.1998, p. 19.
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  (3) OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1.
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 1998
by Bureau EuropeÂen des Unions de Consommateurs
(BEUC), represented by Bernard O'Connor and Bonifacio
García Porras, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie
Adelaïde.
                                                                   Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Maurizio Gastaldello
                                                                               against the Committee of the Regions
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                (Case T-97/98)
                                                                                (98/C 258/69)
Ð declare void, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the
     EC Treaty, Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/98
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
     of 7 April 1998 imposing a provisional anti-dumping
     duty on imports of certain unbleached cotton fabrics
     originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt,         An action against the Committee of the Regions was
     India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey;                        brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 30 June 1998 by Maurizio Gastaldello,
                                                                   residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis,
Ð make any additional order which the Court considers              VeÂronique Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise
     necessary; and                                                Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
                                                                   in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the                     30 Rue de Cessange.
     proceedings.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Ð annul the decision not to admit the applicant to the
                                                                       tests in competition C/01/97;
The applicant in the present case, the same as in Case
T-256/97 (1), is an international representative consumer
organisation comprising a number of national                       Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
organisations, whose object is the promotion of the
interests of consumers in relation to the policies of the          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Union.
                                                                   On 27 October 1997 the applicant, a grade D 3/4 official
The applicant claims that Commission Regulation (EC)               in the Council of the European Union, submitted his
No 773/98 of 7 April 1998, imposing a provisional anti-            application to take part in internal competition No C/01/
dumping duty on imports of certain unbleached cotton               97 organised by the Committee of the Regions with a
fabrics originating in the People's Republic of China,             view to constituting a reserve list for the recruitment of
Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey (2), should be        grade C5/C4 typists.
declared void.
                                                                   The contested decision provided that he was not to be
It is submitted in this regard that the Commission, by not         admitted to the tests.
recognising the applicant as an interested party in
the administrative procedure relating to the contested             According to the applicant, the notice of competition is
regulation and by not allowing it either to have access            unlawful in that it lays down a criterion for admission
to all confidential documents and information made                 which cannot be legally justified by the specific
available during the anti-dumping proceeding or to submit          requirements of the posts to be filled. He further
its comments, has infringed an essential procedural                maintains that the notice is unlawful in that it excludes
requirement provided for in favour of consumer                     applications from potential candidates fulfilling the
organisations in Article 6(7) and 21(2) of Council                 criteria laid down by Article 5(4) of the Staff Regulations
Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on                   who, at the time when the notice of competition was
protection against dumped imports from countries not               published, were not performing duties similar to those
members of the European Community (3).                             described in Point II of the notice in question.
 ---pagebreak--- 15.8.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 258/39
In the applicant's view, the notice of competition breaches        breached its obligations by failing to provide her with the
the principle of equal treatment, inasmuch as it excludes          working environment and support necessary in order to
from participation in the selection procedure officials            enable her satisfactorily to complete the tasks assigned to
possessing experience equivalent to that offered by                her.
officials who, at the time of publication of the notice of
competition, were employed in posts similar to the posts           The report prepared in relation to the applicant at the
to be filled.                                                      expiry of her probationary period is vitiated by a manifest
Lastly, the applicant argues that the contested decision is        error of assessment, inasmuch as it concerns duties
vitiated by a complete absence of any relevant statement           completely different from those for which she was
of reasons enabling him to consider whether it was                 recruited.
justified and permitting the Community judicature to
exercise it powers of review.                                      According to the applicant, the defendant has breached
                                                                   the rights of the defence and has committed an abuse of
                                                                   process, since it is only the Centre itself which is
                                                                   competent to adopt a decision dismissing a person and the
                                                                   decision adopted by the Director alone is therefore illegal.
                                                                   Finally, the defendant has not respected the notice periods
Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Tania Trigari-                   laid down by the Conditions of Employment of Other
Venturin against the Translation Centre for Bodies of              Servants and by the signed contract of employment
                     the European Union                            binding the parties.
                        (Case T-98/98)
                         (98/C 258/70)                             As regards the compensation claimed, the defendant's
                                                                   conduct has placed the applicant in a position of
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   uncertainty and has caused her to suffer concrete material
An action against the Translation Centre for Bodies of             damage, since she has been deprived of part of the
the European Union was brought before the Court of                 unemployment benefits to which she is entitled.
First Instance of the European Communities on 30 June
1998 by Tania Trigari-Venturin, residing at Sandweiler
(Luxembourg), represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique
Leclercq, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                           Removal from the register of Case T-229/95 (1)
Cessange.
                                                                                (98/C 258/71)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Ð annul the decision of the Translation Centre for Bodies
     of the European Union of 9 October 1997 dismissing
     the applicant with effect from 31 October 1997;               By order of 16 June 1998, the President of the Fourth
                                                                   Chamber (Extended) of the Court of First Instance of the
Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant the token            European Communities has ordered the removal from the
     sum of one euro by way of compensation for the non-           register of Case T-229/95: Telecom Italia Mobile SpA v
     material damage suffered by her, together with                Commission of the European Communities.
     compensation for the material damage suffered by her
     in the estimated sum of BFR 500 000, subject to               (1) OJ C 46 of 17.2.1996.
     increase or decrease during the course of the
     proceedings;
Ð order the defendant to pay default interest on all sums
     due pursuant to the judgment to be given, calculated
     at the rate of 8 % per annum from the date on which
     the social benefits to which the applicant is entitled               Removal from the register of Case T-128/97 (1)
     became due until the date of payment;                                                 (98/C 258/72)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the Second
The applicant considers that, by adopting its decision to
                                                                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
dismiss her, the defendant infringed Articles 9 and 10 of
                                                                   Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants and
                                                                   Case T-128/97: Lars Bösche v European Parliament.
breached the principle that a person's grade should be
consistent with the duties to be performed by that person,
in that it assigned to the applicant tasks of a higher level       (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
than those for which she had been recruited, and failed to
draw up a rider to her contract. The defendant further


title: Case F-54/09: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — Lebedef v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Annual leave — Half-time secondment for the purposes of union representation — Unauthorised absence — Deduction from annual leave entitlement — Article 60 of the Staff Regulations — Action manifestly unfounded)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/79

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-54/09) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Annual leave - Half-time secondment for the purposes of union representation - Unauthorised absence - Deduction from annual leave entitlement - Article 60 of the Staff Regulations - Action manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 24/150
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of several decisions concerning the deduction of 39 days of the applicant’s leave entitlement for 2008.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law;.

               2.

               Mr Lebedef is ordered to pay the costs in their entirety.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.07.2009, p. 28


title: Case T-92/11: Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Andersen v Commission (State aid — Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking DSB — Public service contracts for the supply of passenger rail transport services between Copenhagen and Ystad — Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to conditions — Temporal application of rules of substantive law)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 20 March 2013 — Andersen v Commission
   (Case T-92/11) (1)

   (State aid - Aid granted by the Danish authorities to the public undertaking DSB - Public service contracts for the supply of passenger rail transport services between Copenhagen and Ystad - Decision declaring the aid compatible with the internal market subject to conditions - Temporal application of rules of substantive law)
   2013/C 129/33
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jørgen Andersen (Ballerup, Denmark) (represented by: M. Nissen, G. van de Walle de Ghelcke and J. Rivas Andrés, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent, assisted by K. Lundgaard Hansen and R. Holdgaard, lawyers); and by Danske Statsbaner (DSB) (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: S. Kalsmose-Hjelmborg and M. Honoré, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU 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)) (OJ 2011 L 7, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2011/3/EU 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));

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Jørgen Andersen, with the exception of those arising from the interventions;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andersen arising from its intervention;

               4.

               Orders Danske Statsbaner (DSB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Andersen arising from its intervention.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case C-151/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Afdeling Hasselt (Belgium), lodged on 31 March 2010 — Dai Cugini NV v Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/22

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Afdeling Hasselt (Belgium), lodged on 31 March 2010 — Dai Cugini NV v Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid
      (Case C-151/10)
      (2010/C 161/31)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Arbeidshof te Antwerpen — Afdeling Hasselt

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Appellant: Dai Cugini NV

         Respondent: Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Are national provisions, specifically the presumption in Article 22b of the Law of 27 June 1969 amending the Decree-Law of 28 December 1944 on social security for workers (the RSZ Law) and Article 171 of the Programme Law of 22 December 1989, as successively amended, compatible with the provisions of Community law and with Council Directive 97/81/EC (1) of 15 December 1997, in particular Clause 5(1)(a) of the Annex thereto, which states that, in the context of the principle of non-discrimination between part-time and full-time workers, the Member States, following consultations with the social partners in accordance with national law or practice, should identify and review obstacles of a legal or administrative nature which may limit the opportunities for part-time work and, where appropriate, eliminate them?

                  2.

                  Are the national provisions requiring employers to compile and maintain numerous social-security documents under Articles 157 to 169 of the Programme Law of 22 December 1989, and under which non-compliance with those provisions is punishable under criminal law, or may result in the imposition of administrative fines and civil-law penalties, compatible with the provisions of Community law and with Council Directive 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997, in particular Clause 5(1)(a) of the Annex thereto, which states that, in the context of the principle of non-discrimination between part-time and full-time workers, the Member States, following consultations with the social partners in accordance with national law or practice, should identify and review obstacles of a legal or administrative nature which may limit the opportunities for part-time work and, where appropriate, eliminate them?

         (1)  Council Directive 97/81/EC concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC (OJ 1998 L 14, p. 9).


title: Case T-192/09: Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Amen Corner v OHIM — Comercio Electrónico Ojal (SEVE TROPHY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark SEVE TROPHY — Earlier Community figurative marks Seve Ballesteros Trophy and SEVE TROPHY — Relative grounds for refusal — Lack of similarity of the goods and of the services — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — No unfair advantage taken of or detriment caused to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier marks — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/11

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 December 2010 — Amen Corner v OHIM — Comercio Electrónico Ojal (SEVE TROPHY)
   (Case T-192/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark SEVE TROPHY - Earlier Community figurative marks Seve Ballesteros Trophy and SEVE TROPHY - Relative grounds for refusal - Lack of similarity of the goods and of the services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - No unfair advantage taken of or detriment caused to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2011/C 46/21
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Amen Corner, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.A. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Comercio Electrónico Ojal, SL (Madrid)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2009 (Case R 462/2008-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Amen Corner, SA and Comercio Electrónico Ojal, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Amen Corner, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 167, 18.7.2009.


title: Case C-206/07: Order of the President of the Court of 20 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 20 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-206/07) (1)

   (2008/C 51/69)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-182/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Gábor Fekete v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága, (Community Customs Code — Article 137 — Regulation implementing the Customs Code — Article 561(2) — Conditions for total relief from import duties — Importation into a Member State of a vehicle whose owner is established in a third country — Private use)

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Hungary) — Gábor Fekete v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága,
   (Case C-182/12) (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Article 137 - Regulation implementing the Customs Code - Article 561(2) - Conditions for total relief from import duties - Importation into a Member State of a vehicle whose owner is established in a third country - Private use)
   2013/C 123/10
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Székesfehérvári Törvényszék (Hungary)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gábor Fekete

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága,

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Székesfehérvári Törvényszék — Interpretation of Article 561(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Total relief from import duty — Private use of a means of transport — Concept of employment relationship — Importation into a Member State of a vehicle belonging to a foundation established in a third country by the chairman of the board of that foundation — Authorisation of the foundation in question for the chairman of the board to use and drive the vehicle concerned

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 561(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 993/2001 of 4 May 2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the total relief from import duties provided for by that provision for a means of transport used privately by a person established in the customs territory of the European Union may be granted only if such use is provided for in a contract of employment between that person and the owner of the vehicle established outside that territory.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.07.2012.


title: Case C-640/13: Action brought on 4 December 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/2

         Action brought on 4 December 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-640/13)
   2014/C 78/04
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, W. Roels, Agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by retroactively curtailing the right of taxpayers to recover tax which was levied contrary to Union law, the United Kingdom has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU;

               —

               order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      The national legislation in issue

   Section 107 of the Finance Act 2007 retroactively deprives taxpayers of the right to recover unlawfully charged tax.

      The main argument

   In the absence of any provision of EU law on the matter, it is for the national law of each Member State to determine the procedural conditions governing actions to vindicate the rights enjoyed by citizens under EU law. However, that procedural autonomy is subject to observance of the principles of effectiveness and equivalence and to other generally applicable principles of law, such as legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations. Section 107 of the Finance Act 2007 fails to observe those principles and is thus incompatible with Article 4(3) TEU.


title: Case C-182/16 P: Appeal brought on 29 March 2016 by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-247/14: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/18

         Appeal brought on 29 March 2016 by Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 4 February 2016 in Case T-247/14: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG v European Union Intellectual Property Office
   (Case C-182/16 P)
   (2016/C 296/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Meica Ammerländische Fleischwarenfabrik Fritz Meinen GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: S. Labesius, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Salumificio Fratelli Beretta SpA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal partially and annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office insofar as the remainder of the action before the General Court has been dismissed, in the alternative, to refer the case back to the General Court insofar, and

               —

               order the defendant and the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the defendant to bear the cost of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is based on an infringement of Union law by the General Court in so far as the General Court in its judgment of 4 February 2016 infringed Article 8 (1) (b) of Council Regulation No. 207/2009 (1) on the Community trade mark and Art. 296 (2) TFEU.
   In summary, the General Court erred in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion based on the level of distinctiveness of the earlier mark ‘MINI WINI’ and of the similarity of signs and goods with the EUTM application ‘Stick MiniMINI …’, also regarding the independent distinctive role of the element ‘MiniMINI’ within the application. In addition, the General Court did not consider that also inherently weak elements of a trademark contribute to a likelihood of confusion, as well as the specific circumstances of the distribution of products influencing the level of attention of the relevant public and its tendency to abbreviate a mark by a weak, but visually dominant element.
   Further, the General Court erred in law, because even if a verbal element should be considered to have a purely descriptive character, such character does not preclude that element from being acknowledged as dominant for the purposes of assessing the similarity of the signs. Also, the decision of the General Court was based on a distortion of the facts regarding the assessment of the dominant elements regarding their size and position within the sign of the contested EUTM application. In addition, the General Court erred in law when it stated that visual similarity is to be assessed dependently from the degree of the distinctiveness of visual elements of the contested EUTM application. Finally, the judgment under appeal was not properly motivated insofar as the General Court failed to deliver reasons concerning the level of attention of the relevant public concerning the specific goods at issue.

      (1)  OJ L 78, p. 1


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 27 March 1996 in the case of Procureur du Roi, civil party: Union professionnelle belge des médecins spécialistes en ophtalmologie et chirurgie oculaire against Dennis Mac Queen and Others, party liable at civil law: Vision Express Belgium SA (Case C-108/96)

text:
No C 158/6             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   1 . 6 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
The mandatory nature of the third paragraph of Article 189                                    ( Case C- 1 09/96 )
and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires
Member States to adopt the measures necessary to comply                                          ( 96/C 158/ 12 )
with the Directives which are addressed to them within the
period prescribed therein. That period expired on 1 April              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
 1993 without the Kingdom of Spain having brought into                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
force the necessary provisions .                                       3 April 1 996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
(') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 .                              Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in
( 2 ) OJ No L 194, 25 . 7 . 1975 , p . 39 .                            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gômez de la Cruz, of the
                                                                       Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       — declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de                      obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
Première Instance de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of                also to communicate to the Commission in due time the
27 March 1996 in the case of Procureur du Roi, civil party:                laws, regulations and administrative provisions
Union professionnelle belge des médecins spécialistes en                   necessary in order to comply fully with Council
ophtalmologie et chirurgie oculaire against Dennis Mac                     Directive 91/371 /EEC of 20 June 1991 on the
Queen and Others , party liable at civil law: Vision Express               implementation of the Agreement between the European
                             Belgium SA                                    Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation
                         ( Case C-108/96 )                                 concerning direct insurance other than life
                                                                           assurance (');
                           ( 96/C 158/ 11 )
                                                                       — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal de                    Pleas in law and main arguments
Première Instance de Bruxelles ( Court of First Instance,
Brussels ) of 27 March 1996 , which was received at the                Under Article 189 ( 3 ) of the Treaty establishing the
Court Registry on 3 April 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling in          European Community directives are to be binding upon
the case of Procureur du Roi, civil party: Union                       each Member State to which they are addressed . The
professionnelle belge des médecins spécialistes en                     Hellenic Republic has not yet adopted the measures
ophtalmologie et chirurgie oculaire against Dennis Mac                 necessary to incorporate the relevant Directive fully into
Queen, Derek Pouton, Caria Emma Johanna Godts and                      Greek law and has also failed to communicate any such
Youssef Antoun, party liable at civil law: Vision Express              measures to the Commission .
Belgium SA, on the following questions :
                                                                       (') OJ No L 205 , 1991 , p . 48 .
1 . Is a prohibition, arising from the interpretation or the
      application of a provision of national law, restraining
      opticians in other Member States from offering within a
      Member State, for the correction of purely optical
      eyesight defects, services consisting of an objective
      eyesight examination, that is to say otherwise than by          Action brought on 3 April 1996 by the Commission of the
      using a method by which the client himself determines               European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      the eyesight deficiencies and sees to the corection to be                              ( Case C-1 10/96 )
      made , compatible with Articles 5 , 52 and 59 of the EC
      Treaty ?                                                                                ( 96/C 158 /13 )
2 . Are obstacles within a Member State to the marketing of           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
      equipment which enables an objective eyesight                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      examination to be carried out with a view to correcting          3 April 1996 by the Commission of the European
      purely optical eyesight defects, such as, for example, an        Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
      autorefractor, arising from the ban imposed by national         Adviser at the Commission, with an address for service in
      law on opticians established in other Member States              Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
      preventing them from offering, within that Member                Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
      State, services consisting of an objective eyesight
      examination, that is to say a non-subjective                    The applicant claims that the Court should :
      examination, for the correction of purely optical
      eyesight defects, compatible with Article 30 of the EC          — declare that the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
      Treaty ?                                                             obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt and
                                                                           also to communicate to the Commission in due time
                                                                           the laws, regulations and administrative provisions


title: Case T-444/17: Action brought on 12 July 2017 — CompuGroup Medical v EUIPO — Medion (life coins)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/54

         Action brought on 12 July 2017 — CompuGroup Medical v EUIPO — Medion (life coins)
   (Case T-444/17)
   (2017/C 283/84)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: CompuGroup Medical AG (Koblenz, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Medion AG (Essen, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Applicant

      Mark at issue: EU word mark ‘life coins’ — Application for registration No 12 541 538

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 25 April 2017 in Case R 1569/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Case C-242/11 P: Appeal brought on 20 May 2011 by Caixa Geral de Depósitos S.A against the judgment delivered on 3 March 2011 by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Case T-401/07 Caixa Geral de Depósitos v Commission

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/8

         Appeal brought on 20 May 2011 by Caixa Geral de Depósitos S.A against the judgment delivered on 3 March 2011 by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) in Case T-401/07 Caixa Geral de Depósitos v Commission

   (Case C-242/11 P)
   2011/C 219/12
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Caixa Geral de Depósitos S.A. (‘CGD’) (represented by N. Ruiz, advogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               The appellant claims that the Court should set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-401/07 and, consequently, consider its action for annulment to have been brought in due form and to be admissible, refer the case back to the General Court for the latter to assess the claim for annulment in part of the contested decision and order the Commission to pay EUR 1 925 858,61 together with default interest and to pay the costs incurred by the appellant;

               —

               Or, in the alternative, the appellant claims that the Court should set aside the judgment of the General Court in Case T-401/07 and, consequently, consider its action for annulment to have been brought in due form and to be admissible, giving a final ruling on the dispute and allowing the claims made by the appellant at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant raises three pleas in support of its appeal:
   1.   The first and principal plea, relating to the appellant’s capacity to bring proceedings and to infringement of Article 263 TFEU

   The appellant takes the view that it is directly and individually concerned by the contested decision (1) for it (the appellant), as well as being the operational intermediary, is actually the credit institution that, on its own behalf and at its own risk, in accordance with the decision approving the subsidy and with the agreement concluded with the Commission in order to give effect to that decision, concluded the loan contracts with the final beneficiaries from which the interest credits are derived that are the subject of the subsidy granted by the ERDF.
   In addition, the assistance having been granted to CGD in order to offset the subsidies for the interest that that final beneficiaries must pay it, the General Court did not properly consider the question whether the Member State to which the contested decision was addressed might prevent the latter from having any effect in the CGD’s legal sphere, given that the hypothesis in which the State would make up the EDRF contribution in default is merely theoretical.
   2.   Second and ancillary plea, relating to the infringement of European Union law by the General Court in considering unfounded the claims of the Portuguese Republic in its judgment of 3 March 2011 in Case T-387/07 Portugal v Commission

   The appellant maintains that the judgment in Case T-387/07 did not duly consider whether the contested decision was marred by want of reasoning or by incorrect reasoning, for: (a) the contested decision established no clear connection between the two allegations made against the applicants and the amount to which the assistance granted by the ERDF must finally be reduced; and (b) the General Court ended by basing the lawfulness of the contested decision on reasons different from those relied by the Commission as grounds for reducing the assistance granted by the ERDF.
   The judgment in Case T-387/07 is also marred by an error of law, in that it replaces by its own reasoning that of the contested decision.
   3.   Third and ancillary plea, relating to whether expenditure was regularly incurred and to infringement of Article 21(1) of Regulation No 4253/88
       (2)
      and of the agreement

   The appellant maintains that the judgment in Case T-387/07 failed to assess properly whether the contested decision was vitiated by the following defects: (a) error of fact and of law too, inasmuch as it assumes that the subsidies for interest on the loans forming part of the SGAIA (global grant for local development) may be paid by the intermediary to the final beneficiaries; (b) error of law, in that it holds it to be impossible for the conditions laid down in Article 13(3) of Regulation No 2052/88 (3) to be considered to be satisfied later when the total subsidy was computed; (c) error of law, in that the judgment considers that the SGAIA must follow a closure procedure ensuring that the sums corresponding to the subsidies for interest falling due should be debited from the special account and/or deposited in a second special bank account until 31 December 2001, failing which the corresponding expenditure might not be considered incurred by that date; (d) error of law, in that it considers that the SGAIA must follow a closure procedure ensuring that the sums corresponding to the subsidies for interest falling due on 31 December 2001 should be advanced to the final beneficiaries and, consequently, debited from the special account by 31 December 2001, failing which the corresponding expenditure might not be considered incurred by that date.

      (1)  Commission Decision C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the financial assistance granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the global grant for local development in Portugal by Commission Decision C(95) 1769 of the European Commission of 28 July 1995.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).

      (3)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 of 24 June 1988 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their effectiveness and on coordination of their activities between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 185, p. 9).


title: Case C-608/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2010 — Südzucker AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 24 December 2010 — Südzucker AG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-608/10)
   2011/C 113/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Südzucker AG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the holder of an export licence entitled to an export refund (Article 5(7) of Regulation No 800/1999) (1) only if he is registered as exporter in box 2 of the export declaration lodged with the competent customs office?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Does Article 78(1) and (3) of the Customs Code (2) allow post-clearance revision of the export declaration in order to change the exporter in box 2 of the export declaration, and are the customs authorities obliged in a case such as that in the main proceedings to regularise the situation and to grant the export refund?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative: Can the customs authorities directly regularise the situation described in Article 78(3) of the Customs Code in such a way that the exporter can be granted the export refund, without the need for prior correction of the export declaration?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.


title: Case C-489/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Family Division — United Kingdom) — A v B (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Lis pendens — Articles 16 and 19(1) and (3) — Judicial separation proceedings in a first Member State and divorce proceedings in a second Member State — Jurisdiction of the court first seised — Concept of ‘established’ jurisdiction — Lapse of the first proceedings and commencement of fresh divorce proceedings in the first Member State — Consequences — Time difference between the Member States — Effects on the procedure for seising the courts)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 6 October 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Family Division — United Kingdom) — A v B
   (Case C-489/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Lis pendens - Articles 16 and 19(1) and (3) - Judicial separation proceedings in a first Member State and divorce proceedings in a second Member State - Jurisdiction of the court first seised - Concept of ‘established’ jurisdiction - Lapse of the first proceedings and commencement of fresh divorce proceedings in the first Member State - Consequences - Time difference between the Member States - Effects on the procedure for seising the courts))
   (2015/C 389/12)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Family Division

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A

      Defendant: B

      Operative part of the judgment

   In the case of judicial separation and divorce proceedings brought between the same parties before the courts of two Member States, Article 19(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings in which the proceedings before the court first seised in the first Member State expired after the second court in the second Member State was seised, the criteria for lis pendens are no longer fulfilled and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the court first seised must be regarded as not being established.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 December 1998 in Case T-203/96: Embassy Limousines & Services v. European Parliament (Arbitration clause - Existence of a contract - Non-contractual liability - Withdrawal of an invitation to tender - Legitimate expectations - Assessment of damage)

text:
20.2.1999           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/23
       Removal from the register of Case C-13/98 (1)              from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Firenze):
                       (1999/C 48/48)                             Centro Servizi Acciai Rivestiti Spa (CSAR) v. Direzione
                                                                  Regionale delle Entrate per la Toscana and Ufficio delle
By order of 9 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the           Imposte Diretti di Firenze.
European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-13/98 (request for a preliminary ruling        (1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998.
                                                 COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
                    of 13 January 1999
                                                                  (1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
in Case T-1/96: Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger
Schulze-Beiering v. Council of the European Union and
       Commission of the European Communities (1)
(Action for damages Ð Non-contractual liability Ð Milk
Ð Additional levy Ð Reference quantity Ð Producer
having entered into a non-marketing undertaking Ð                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Voluntary non-resumption of production upon expiry of                                 of 17 December 1998
      the undertaking Ð Acts of national authorities)
                                                                  in Case T-203/96: Embassy Limousines & Services v.
                       (1999/C 48/49)                                                European Parliament (1)
                                                                  (Arbitration clause Ð Existence of a contract Ð
                                                                  Non-contractual liability Ð Withdrawal of an invitation
              (Language of the case: German)                      to tender Ð Legitimate expectations Ð Assessment of
                                                                                damage)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/50)
In Case T-1/96: Bernhard Böcker-Lensing and Ludger
Schulze-Beiering,    residing   at    Borken     (Germany),                       (Language of the case: French)
represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
Dietrich Manstetten, Frank Schulze and Klaus Kettner,
Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for service in            In Case T-203/96: Embassy Limousines & Services,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong and Dupong,                  established in Diegem (Belgium), represented by Eric
4-6 Rue de la Boucherie, v. Council of the European               Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Union (Agents: Arthur Brautigam, Hans-Jürgen Rabe,                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
Georg M. Berrisch and Marco NuÂnÄez-Müller) and                   Fort Rheinsheim against European Parliament (Agents:
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Dierk             FrancËois Vainker, Anders Neergaard and Charles Price) Ð
Booû, Michael Niejahr, Hans-Jürgen Rabe, Georg M.                 application for compensation for the damage allegedly
Berrisch and Marco NuÂnÄez-Müller) Ð application for              suffered by the applicant on account of the wrongful
damages pursuant to Article 178 and the second                    conduct of the Parliament in connection with Invitation to
paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty for the losses          Tender No 95/S 158-76321/FR relating to a contract for
suffered by the applicants as a result of their having been       passenger transport using chauffeur-driven vehicles,
prevented from marketing milk pursuant to Council                 brought pursuant to Article 181 of the EC Treaty, under
Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting              the arbitration clause in the third paragraph of Article 6
general rules for the application of the levy referred to in      of the specifications of that invitation to tender and
Article 5(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk            Article VIII of framework contract PE-TRANS-BXL-95/6,
and milk products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13),              and, in the alternative, pursuant to Article 178 and the
as supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC)                    second paragraph of Article 215 of that Treaty Ð the
No 1371/84 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11) Ð the Court of            Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P.
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B.                   Lindh, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke,
Vesterdorf, President, R. M. Moura Ramos and P.                   Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 December 1998, in
judgment on 13 January 1999, in which it:                         which it:
                                                                  1. Orders the European Parliament to pay to the
1. Dismisses the application.                                         applicant a sum of BEF 5 000 000.
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
2. Declares that that sum will bear interest at an annual               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    rate of 8 % with effect from the date of this judgment                              of 30 November 1998
    and until due payment.
                                                                   in Case T-97/94: N v. Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
3. Orders the Parliament to pay its own costs and the              (Former officials Ð Staff report Ð Legal interest in
    costs of the applicant.                                                   bringing proceedings Ð Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/52)
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   In Case T-97/94: N, a former official of the Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                   represented by Georges A. Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                   Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission
                    of 15 December 1998                            of the European Communities (Agent: Lucio Gussetti) Ð
in Case T-233/97: Folmer Bang-Hansen v. Commission of              application, first, for annulment of the applicant's staff
                the European Communities (1)                       report, prepared by the Commission, for the period from
                                                                   1 July 1989 to 30 June 1991 and, second, for
(Officials Ð Transfer of pension rights Ð Article 11(2) of         compensation for the material and non-material damage
            Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)                   allegedly suffered as a result of that report Ð the Court of
                                                                   First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D. Cooke,
                        (1999/C 48/51)                             President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H.
                                                                   Jung, Registrar, made an order on 30 November 1998, the
                                                                   operative part of which is as follows:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-233/97: Folmer Bang-Hansen, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                2. The parties are to bear their own costs.
by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2          (1) OJ C 120, 30.4.1994.
Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v. Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence
Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application for annulment of the
Commission's decision of 16 October 1996 providing that
the time-limit for transferring pension rights is to be
calculated separately for each transfer and refusing the
applicant's request for aggregation of transfers from the               ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Andels-Pensionsforening       and   the    Juristernes    og                            of 25 November 1998
ékonomernes Pensionskasse Ð the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President,            in Case T-255/97: Georges Keiser v. Commission of the
R. M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,                                  European Communities (1)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 1998, in
                                                                   (Officials Ð Time-limits for bringing proceedings Ð
which it:
                                                                                Manifest inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/53)
1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 16 October 1996
    providing that the time-limit for transferring pension                        (Language of the case: French)
    rights is to be calculated separately for each transfer
    and refusing the applicant's request for aggregation of
    transfers from the Andels-Pensionsforening and the             In Case T-255/97: Georges Keiser, an official of the
    Juristernes og ékonomernes Pensionskasse.                      Commission of the European Communities, residing at
                                                                   Asselscheuer (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented
                                                                   by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
3. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.                         service in Luxembourg at 44 Rue du Grunewald,
                                                                   Asselscheuer,     v.    Commission      of   the   European
                                                                   Communities (Agent: Christine Berardis-Kayser) Ð
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.                                          application for annulment of the refusal of the applicant's
                                                                   request to be re-assigned to the post held by him prior to
                                                                   the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings brought
                                                                   against him Ð the Court of First Instance (First


title: Case F-11/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Dupré v EEAS (Civil service — Staff of the EEAS — Member of the temporary staff — Article 98 of the Staff Regulations — Article 2(e) of the CEOS — Contract of employment — Grading — Plea of illegality of the vacancy notice — Post at grade AD 5 open to staff from national diplomatic services and to officials of grades AD 5 to AD 14 — Principle of correspondence between the grade and the post — Judgment by default)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/42

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 18 May 2015 — Dupré v EEAS
   (Case F-11/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Staff of the EEAS - Member of the temporary staff - Article 98 of the Staff Regulations - Article 2(e) of the CEOS - Contract of employment - Grading - Plea of illegality of the vacancy notice - Post at grade AD 5 open to staff from national diplomatic services and to officials of grades AD 5 to AD 14 - Principle of correspondence between the grade and the post - Judgment by default))
   (2015/C 213/69)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bruno Dupré (Etterbeek, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the applicant’s contract in so far as it categorises him at grade AD 5 and to compensate him for the harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102 of 7/4/2014, p. 45.


title: Case C-547/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams — Latvia) — ‘Oliver Medical’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Headings 8543, 9018 and 9019 — Laser and ultrasonic appliances and their parts and accessories)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/12

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams — Latvia) — ‘Oliver Medical’ SIA v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-547/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Headings 8543, 9018 and 9019 - Laser and ultrasonic appliances and their parts and accessories))
   (2015/C 138/15)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Administratīvā rajona tiesa, Rīgas tiesu nams

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Oliver Medical’ SIA

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff as amended, successively, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 of 5 October 2010 and Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, must be classified as medical instruments or appliances, under heading 9018 of the Combined Nomenclature, or as mechano-therapy appliances, under heading 9019 thereof, or rather as electrical apparatus, having an individual function, under heading 8543 thereof, it is appropriate to take account of all the relevant factors in the case, to the extent that they relate to characteristics and objective properties inherent to those goods. Among the relevant factors, it is necessary to assess the use for which the product is intended by the manufacturer and the methods and place of its use. Thus, the fact that the product is intended to treat one or more different pathologies and that that treatment must be carried out in an authorised medical centre and under the supervision of a practitioner are indications capable of establishing that that product is intended for medical use. Conversely, the fact that a product mainly brings about aesthetic improvement, that it may be operated outside a medical environment, for example in a beauty parlour, and without the intervention of a practitioner are indications that that product is not intended for medical use. The dimensions, weight and technology used are not decisive factors for the classification of goods, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, under heading 9018 of the Combined Nomenclature.

      (1)  OJ C 377, 21.12.2013.


title: Case C-498/04: Action brought on 1 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/13

         Action brought on 1 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-498/04)
   (2005/C 31/26)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Yiorgos Zabbo, of its Legal service.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/83/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance which, under Article 72 thereof, repealed Directive 2002/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 March 2002 amending Council Directive 79/267/EEC as regards the solvency margin requirements for life assurance undertakings and, in any event, by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               —

               Order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 20 September 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 345, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 4 July 1996 in Case C-50/94: Hellenic Republic v. Commission of the European Communities (Clearance of EAGGF accounts - Expenditure for 1990)

text:
No C 336/6               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                  9 . 11 . 96
P. Leger, Registrar : D. Loutermann-Hubeau , Principal                      1 . Dismisses the application;
Administrator, has given a judgment on 2 July 1996 , in
which it :
                                                                           2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
1 . Declares that, in not restricting the requirement of                   (') OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
      Greek nationality to access to posts involving direct or             ( 2 ) OJ No L 301 , 1993 , p . 13 .
      indirect participation in the exercise of powers
      conferred by public law and duties designed to
      safeguard the general interests of the State or of other
      public authorities in the public sectors of water, gas and
      electricity distribution, the operational public health
      services, in the sectors of public education, transport
      by sea and air, railways, city and intercity public                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      transport, research for civil purposes, posts and
      telecommunications           and    radio      and   television                              (Third Chamber )
      broadcasting, and at the Athens Opera and in municipal                                         of 4 July 1996
      and local orchestras, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
      fulfil its obligations under Article 48 of the EC Treaty             in Case C-254/95 P: European Parliament v. Angelo
                                                                                Innamorati ( 1 )
      and Article I of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
      of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for                        (Appeal — Officials — Competitions — Rejection of
      workers within the Community;                                        candidature — Statement of reasons for the decision of a
                                                                                selection board in an open competition)
2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                                                    ( 96/C 336/ 12 )
(') O J No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .                                                          (Language of the case: French)
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Ediditon 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-254/94 P : European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred
                                                                           Peter and Jose Luis Rufas Quintana ) — appeal against the
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                           ( Sixth Chamber)                                Communities of 30 May 1995 in Case T-289/94 Innamorati
                             of 4 July 1996                                v. Parliament ( 1995 ) ECR-SC 11-393 , seeking to have that
                                                                           judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
in Case C-50/94 : Hellenic Republic v. Commission of the                   Angelo Innamorati ( represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
                     European Communities ( l )                            Thierry Demaseure, Veronique Leclercq and Ariane
      (Clearance of EAGGF accounts — Expenditure for                       Tornel ), the Court ( Third Chamber ), composed of: J. -P.
                                  .1990)                                   Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C.
                             ( 96/C 336/ 11 )                              Moitinho de Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges; N. Fennelly,
                                                                           Advocate-General; R. Grass , Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 4 July 1996 , in which it :
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                            1 . Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                     of 30 May 1995 in Case T-289/94 Innamorati v.
            published in the European Court Reports)                             Parliament;
In Case C-50/94 : Hellenic Republic ( Agents : Vasileios                   2 . Dismisses Mr Innamorati 's application for annulment
Kontolaimos, Ioannis Chalkias, Christina Sitara and                              of the decision by which the Selection Board in Open
Vasileia Pelekou ) v. Commission of the European                                  Competition PE/59/A awarded him an eliminatory
Communities ( Agent: Xenophon Yataganas ) — application                          mark in the third written test in that competition and
for annulment of Commission Decision 93/659/EC of
                                                                                refused to admit him to the other tests;
25 November 1993 on the clearance of the accounts
presented by the Member States in respect of the
expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural                           3 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs incurred in
Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee                                 these proceedings and in those before the Court of First
Section ( 2 ), in so far as it concerns the Hellenic Republic the                 Instance .
Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris,
President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and                      (') OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .
P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; H.
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
4 July 1996 , in which it:


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 July 2004 in Case C-127/03: Commission of the European Communities v Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd (Arbitration clause — Repayment of sums advanced — Interest for late payment — Judgment by default)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 8 July 2004
   in Case C-127/03: Commission of the European Communities v Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Repayment of sums advanced - Interest for late payment - Judgment by default)
   (2004/C 217/09)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-127/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Flynn and C. Giolito) v Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), — application by the Commission of the European Communities under Article 238 EC for repayment of the sum of EUR 21 303 paid by the Commission to the defendant in connection with the performance of contract No EP 23697 together with interest for late payment — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Orders Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd to pay the Commission of the European Communities the sum of EUR 21 303 due as principal sum, together with interest for late payment:

                           —

                           at the rate of 6.09 % per annum from 31 August 2000 to 31 December 2002;

                           —

                           at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 January 2003 to the date of the present judgment;

                           —

                           at the annual rate applied under the law of Ireland, currently section 26 of the Debtors (Ireland) Act, 1840, as amended, in accordance with section 20 of the Courts Act, 1981, by regulation 3 of the Courts Act, 1981 (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order, 1989, up to a limit of a rate of 8.09 % per annum, from the date of the present judgment;

               2.

               Orders Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.