title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 3 October 2002 in Case C-136/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kuopin hallinto-oikeus): Rolf Dieter Danner (Voluntary pension insurance — Policy taken out with a company in another Member State — Non-deductibility of contributions — Compatibility with Articles 6 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 49 EC), 60, 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 50 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC), and 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC)

text:
23.11.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 289/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs.
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 340 of 7.11.1998.
                      of 26 September 2002
in Case C-351/98: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(State aid — Effect on competition and trade between                                                   (Fifth Chamber)
Member States — De minimis rule — Sectoral guidelines
and guidelines on aid for environmental protection —                                                 of 3 October 2002
               Horizontal aid with sectoral effects)
                                                                             in Case C-136/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          (2002/C 289/01)                                         the Kuopin hallinto-oikeus): Rolf Dieter Danner ( 1)
                                                                             (Voluntary pension insurance — Policy taken out with a
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                           company in another Member State — Non-deductibility of
                                                                             contributions — Compatibility with Articles 6 and 59 of the
                                                                             EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 49
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       EC), 60, 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 50 EC,
                   in the European Court Reports)                            56 EC and 58 EC), and 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after
                                                                                amendment, Article 87 EC)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/02)
In Case C-351/98, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: R. Silva Lapuerta)
v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Guerra                                     (Language of the case: Finnish)
Fernández and D. Triantafyllou): Application for partial annul-
ment of Commission Decision 98/693/EC of 1 July 1998                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
concerning the Spanish Plan Renove Industrial system of aid                                     in the European Court Reports)
for the purchase of commercial vehicles (August 1994 —
December 1996) (OJ 1998 L 329, p. 23), the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber,
C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and                    In Case C-136/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;                    EC by the Kuopion Hallinto-Oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            ruling in the proceedings brought by Rolf Dieter Danner, on
a judgment on 26 September 2002, in which it:                                the interpretation of Articles 6 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                             after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 49 EC), 60, 73b and 73d
                                                                             of the EC Treaty (now Articles 50 EC, 56 EC and 58 EC)
1.    Annuls Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 98/693/EC               and 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87
      of 1 July 1998 concerning the Spanish Plan Renove Industrial           EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President
      system of aid for the purchase of commercial vehicles (August          of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola
      1994 — December 1996);                                                 and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         23.11.2002
General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a                     Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom
judgment on 3 October 2002, in which it has ruled:                          of Sweden (OJ 1997 C 15, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
                                                                            composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)           mann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and
is to be interpreted as precluding a Member State’s tax legislation         J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
from restricting or disallowing the deductibility for income tax            M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
purposes of contributions to voluntary pension schemes paid to              judgment on 1 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
pension providers in other Member States while allowing such
contributions to be deducted when they are paid to institutions in the      The rules on jurisdiction laid down in the Convention of 27 September
first-mentioned Member State, if that legislation does not at the           1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
same time preclude taxation of the pensions paid by the abovemen-           Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968, as amended by the
tioned pension providers.                                                   Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of
                                                                            Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24. 6. 2000.                                               Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the
                                                                            Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May
                                                                            1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
                                                                            Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the
                                                                            Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
                                                                            Kingdom of Sweden, must be interpreted as meaning that a preventive
                                                                            action brought by a consumer protection organisation for the purpose
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      of preventing a trader from using terms considered to be unfair in
                                                                            contracts with private individuals is a matter relating to tort, delict or
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                   quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that convention.
                         of 1 October 2002                                  (1 ) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.
in Case C-167/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Verein für Konsumenteninfor-
                 mation v Karl Heinz Henkel (1)
(Brussels Convention — Article 5(3) — Jurisdiction in
matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict — Preventive
action by associations — Consumer protection organisation                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
seeking an injunction to prevent a trader from using unfair
                   terms in consumer contracts)                                                        (First Chamber)
                           (2002/C 289/03)                                                           of 3 October 2002
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                            in Case C-347/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Juzgado de lo Social n 3 de Orense): Ángel Barreira
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      Pérez v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS),
                    in the European Court Reports)                               Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS) (1)
                                                                            (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 1(r) and (s)
In Case C-167/00: Reference to the Court under the Protocol                 and 46(2) — Award of pension rights — Periods of
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of             insurance completed before the materialisation of the risk —
the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the                                  Periods of notional contribution)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Verein                                            (2002/C 289/04)
für Konsumenteninformation and Karl Heinz Henkel, on
the interpretation of Article 5(3) of the abovementioned                                        (Language of the case: Spanish)
Convention of 27 September 1968 (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978                                          in the European Court Reports)
L 304, p. 1, and — amended version — p. 77), by the
Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), by the Convention of
26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and                    In Case C-347/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
the Portuguese Republic (OJ 1989 L 285, p. 1) and by the                    EC by the Juzgado de lo Social No 3 de Orense (Spain) for
Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the                      a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that


title: Case C-386/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de travail Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 30 September 2009 — Jhonny Briot v Randstad Interim, Sodexho SA, Council of the European Union

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de travail Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 30 September 2009 — Jhonny Briot v Randstad Interim, Sodexho SA, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-386/09)
   2009/C 312/29
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jhonny Briot

      Defendants: Randstad Interim, Sodexho SA and Council of the European Union

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where, in the framework of a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 2001/23, (1) it appears that the entity transferred, namely the staff restaurant of a Community institution, used a significant number of temporary agency workers under a framework contract concluded with various temporary employment agencies, must the temporary employment agency, or failing that the institution under whose control and direction the temporary workers worked, be regarded as an employer-transferor within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of that directive?
               Where neither the temporary employment agency nor the undertaking using the worker can be recognised as having the status of employer-transferor, must the temporary agency workers be considered not to be entitled to the safeguards offered by Directive 2001/2003?

               2.

               Must Article 4(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC be interpreted as meaning that the non-renewal of the fixed-term contracts of employment of the temporary agency workers attributable to the transfer of the activity to which they were assigned disregards the prohibition laid down in that provision in such a way that those temporary agency workers must be regarded as still being available to the user on the date of the transfer?

               3.

               Must Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/23/EC, read where appropriate in conjunction with Article 2(2)(c), be interpreted as requiring the transferee to maintain an employment relationship with the temporary agency workers who were assigned to the activity that is being transferred or who must be regarded as still being available to the user on the date of the transfer?
               If that question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 3(1) be interpreted as requiring the conclusion of an employment contract of indeterminate duration where the transferee is not a temporary employment agency and cannot conclude a temporary agency contract of employment?

      (1)  Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16).


title: Case F-38/14: Action brought on 21 April 2014  — ZZ v Council

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/45

         Action brought on 21 April 2014 — ZZ v Council
   (Case F-38/14)
   2014/C 212/57
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Civil Service — Action for annulment of the decision of the Secretary-General of the Council to impose the sanction of removal from post with 15 % reduction of invalidity allowance until retirement age

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the present action admissible;

               —

               Annul the contested decision and, so far as necessary, the decision rejecting the complaint;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.


title: Case T-200/06: Action brought on 26 July 2006 — IBERDROLA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/49

         Action brought on 26 July 2006 — IBERDROLA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-200/06)
   (2006/C 224/103)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: IBERDROLA S.A. (Bilbao, Spain) (represented by: J. Alfaro Aguilar and P. Liñán Hernández, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is directed against the Decision of the European Commission of 25 April 2006 (Case No COMP/M.4110 — E.ON/ENDESA) declaring compatible with the common market the concentration whereby E.ON AG proposes to acquire control of the whole of the shares in ENDESA SA.
   The applicant claims in that regard that, in its opinion, the contested decision disregards the serious risks that coordinated effects will be produced in the relations of competition between the principal operators with a pan-European presence, which must be examined in a transaction of this magnitude and having these characteristics, that it affects the dominant undertakings in two of the main national energy markets.
   In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that the defendant has:

               —

               infringed the principle of sound administration by carrying out a biased and inadequate investigation of the operation of the affected markets and of the impact of the transaction in those markets;

               —

               made an error of law by basing its examination of the transaction on a consideration of the national markets, contrary to the Merger Regulation and the Community case-law;

               —

               failed to fulfil its obligation to ensure the coherent application of the rules on the control of concentrations and the abuse of a dominant position in examining the notified transaction, authorising it without having examined the origin of the funds which E.ON proposed to use for the acquisition of ENDESA, in order to determine whether such a concentration could be the result of an abuse of a dominant position;

               —

               made a series of manifest errors of assessment and ignored certain relevant elements by concluding that the compatibility of the transaction does not raise serious doubts and adopting the decision authorising it in Phase 1. The applicant emphasises in that regard that, although it was adopted on the basis of the new Merger Regulation, which requires a more sophisticated and rigorous analysis, the contested decision:

                           —

                           wholly ignores the negative impact which the transaction will have on the process of the integration of the national wholesale markets, which will culminate in the completion of the single European market in gas and electricity,

                           —

                           did not sufficiently evaluate the impact of the proposed transaction on the emergent pan-European market for the supply of electricity to multinational undertakings,

                           —

                           considers that, in spite of its pan-European objective and its economic strength, E.ON was not a significant potential competitor of ENDESA in the Spanish markets for electricity generation and the supply of gas,

                           —

                           concludes that the transaction will not strengthen a dominant position in the German market and that the disappearance of a recent entrant, ENDESA, does not alter the competitive context.

         Finally the applicant claims that there has been a breach of the duty to state the reasons on which measures are based.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 November 2001 in Case C-143/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verfassungsgerichtshof): Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH, and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten (Tax on energy — Rebate granted only to undertakings manufacturing goods — State aid)

text:
C 3/6                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.1.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                            (Second Chamber)
                        of 8 November 2001                                                           of 8 November 2001
in Case C-143/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    in Case C-228/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verfassungsgerichtshof): Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH,                       the Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari): Silos e Mangimi
and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH v                                         Martini SpA v Ministero delle Finanze (1)
             Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten (1)
                                                                             (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
(Tax on energy — Rebate granted only to undertakings                         Export refunds — Withdrawal — Interpretation and validity
               manufacturing goods — State aid)                              of Regulations (EC) Nos 1521/95 and 1576/95 — Failure
                                                                                to state reasons)
                            (2002/C 3/08)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/09)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-143/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Verfassungsge-                   In Case C-228/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
richtshof (Constitutional Court) (Austria) for a preliminary                 EC from the Tribunale civile e penale di Cagliari (Italy) for a
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer                        court between Silos e Mangimi Martini SpA and Ministero delle
Zementwerke GmbH and Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten                       Finanze — on the interpretation and validity of Commission
— on the interpretation of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now,                 Regulations (EC) Nos 1521/95 of 29 June 1995 and 1576/95
after amendment, Article 87 EC) — the Court, composed of:                    of 30 June 1995 fixing the export refunds on cereal-based
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, L. Sevón,                 compound feedingstuffs (OJ 1995 L 147, p. 65, and OJ 1995
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;                     L 150, p. 64) — the Court, composed of: N. Colneric, President
J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                   of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris,
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 November                Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
2001, in which it has ruled:                                                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 November
                                                                             2001, in which it has ruled:
1.    National measures which provide for a rebate of energy taxes
      on natural gas and electricity do not constitute State aid within      1.    Commission Regulation (EC) No 1521/95 of 29 June
      the meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after                       1995 fixing the export refunds on cereal-based compound
      amendment, Article 87 EC) where they apply to all undertakings               feedingstuffs applied to the exports for which the competent
      in national territory, regardless of their activity.                         customs service accepted, on the date of its publication, export
                                                                                declarations stating that an export refund was going to be
                                                                                claimed and for which advance fixing of the export refund had
2.    National measures which provide for a rebate of energy taxes                 not been requested.
      on natural gas and electricity only in the case of undertakings
      whose activity is shown to consist primarily in the manufacture
      of goods must be regarded as State aid within the meaning of           2.    Commission Regulation (EC) No 1576/95 of 30 June
      Article 92 of the Treaty.                                                    1995 fixing the export refunds on cereal-based compound
                                                                                feedingstuffs did not revoke Regulation No 1521/95 and
                                                                                therefore had no effect on the applicability of the latter
                                                                                regulation on 30 June 1995.
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                             3.    Commission Regulation No 1521/95 does not satisfy the
                                                                                requirement to state reasons laid down in Article 190 of the
                                                                                EC Treaty (now Article 253 EC) and is therefore invalid.


title: Case T-35/08: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2010 — Codorniu Napa v OHIM — Bodegas Ontañón (ASTESA NAPA VALLEY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for figurative Community trade mark ARTESA NAPA VALLEY — Earlier figurative Community trade mark ARTESO and earlier national word mark LA ARTESA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2010 — Codorniu Napa v OHIM — Bodegas Ontañón (ASTESA NAPA VALLEY)
   (Case T-35/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for figurative Community trade mark ARTESA NAPA VALLEY - Earlier figurative Community trade mark ARTESO and earlier national word mark LA ARTESA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2011/C 13/42
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Codorniu Napa, Inc. (Napa, California, United States) (represented by: X. Fàbrega Sabaté and M. Curell Aguilà, lawyers, and subsequently by M. Curell Aguilà and J. Güell Serra, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Bodegas Ontañón, SA (Quel, La Rioja, Spain) (represented by: J. Grimau Muñoz and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 November 2007 (Case R 747/2006-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Bodegas Ontañón, SA and Codorniu Napa, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Codorniu Napa, Inc., to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case F-12/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2006 — Tas v Commission (Recruitment — Open competition — Eligibility criteria — Non-admission to the tests — Qualifications — Professional qualification — Equal treatment)

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 July 2006 — Tas v Commission
   (Case F-12/05) (1)

   (Recruitment - Open competition - Eligibility criteria - Non-admission to the tests - Qualifications - Professional qualification - Equal treatment)
   (2006/C 212/82)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: David Tas (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, X. Martin, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Selection Board's decision not to admit the applicant to the tests in competition EPSO/A/4/03, organised to draw up a reserve list of assistant administrators at Grade A 8 in the sectors ‘European public administration’, ‘Law’, ‘Economy’ and ‘Audit’.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.05.2005 (case initially registered at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-124/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Genova by order of that court of 18 June 1996 EDIS-Edilizia Industriale Siderurgica Srl (formerly EDIS SpA) v. Ministero delle Finanze (Case C-231/96)

text:
 No C 247/ 10           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 8 . 96
 3 . Whether the NBU laid down by the ABI for its members                      points 8 and 9 of the Annex thereto, save in respect of
      in relation to the 'all-embracing' guarantee covering the                mercury and lead,
      credit facility — since they are applied in a uniform and
      binding manner by the member banks — are, taken as a            — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
      whole, compatible with Article 85 of the Treaty, in                  proceedings .
      relation to the individual clauses discussed in the
      grounds of this order, in that they are liable adversely to
      affect trade between the Member States and have as              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      their object and effect the prevention , restriction or
      distortion of competition within the Common                     Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
      Market;                                                         binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
                                                                      State to which it is addressed , places Member States under
4 . What effects any finding of incompatibility in                    an obligation to comply with the time-limits set by directives
      accordance with point 3 may have on the corresponding           for their implementation . In the present case, when the
     clauses of the ' all-embracing' guarantee agreements and         time-limit expired on 5 November 1981 , the Italian
     on the agreements themselves concluded 'downstream '             Republic had not adopted the measures necessary to comply
                                                                      in full with Directive 79/923/EEC .
      by individual banks, since, as a group, the banks
      belonging to the ABI may be regarded , within the
     meaning and for the purposes of Article 86 of the Treaty,        (') OJ No L 281 , 10 . 11 . 1979 , p . 47 .
     as holding a joint dominant position in the national
     credit market, whose specific application of the rules in
     question is regarded as an abuse .
(') Associazione Bancaria Italiana .
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
                                                                     Genova by order of that court of 1 8 June 1 996 EDIS-Edilizia
                                                                     Industriale Siderurgica Sri ( formerly EDIS SpA ) v. Ministero
                                                                                delle Finanze
                                                                                ( Case C-231 /96 )
Action brought on 28 June 1996 by the Commission of the                                          ( 96/C 247/20 )
    European Communities against the Italian Republic
                         ( Case C-225/96 )                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                           ( 96/C 247/19 )                           European Communities by order of 18 June 1996 of the
                                                                     Tribunale di Genova ( District Court, Genoa ), which was
                                                                     received at the Court Registry on 8 July 1996 , for a
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before            preliminary ruling in the case of EDIS-Edilizia Industriale
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                  Siderurgica Sri ( formerly EDIS SpA ) v. Ministero delle
28 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                       Finanze on the following questions :
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu of its Legal
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in             1 . For the purposes of amplifying and clarifying the ruling
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also                 given in the judgment of 20 April 1 993 in Joined Cases
of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                          C-71 /91 and C-178/91 Ponente Carni SpA v.
                                                                          Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato ('), must the
The applicant claims that the Court should :                              provisions of the Treaty be interpreted as precluding the
                                                                          introduction and/or the retention by a Member State of
                                                                          a national provision such as that introduced by the
— declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          Italian legislature in paragraph 2 of Article 13 of Decree
     obligations under the EC Treaty, by :
                                                                          No 641 of the President of the Republic of 26 October
                                                                          1972 where the effect of the application of that
     — not designating waters as needing protection or                    provision is to limit the temporal effects of a judgment
         improvement in order to support shellfish life and               given by the Court of Justice ?
         growth, in accordance with Article 4 of Directive
         79/923/EEC ('), and/or not communicating such               2 . Is Article 5 of the EC Treaty, as interpreted in the
         designations to the Commission , pursuant to                     Court's case-law, compatible with a national provision
         Article 13 of that Directive,
                                                                          ( Article 1 3 of Presidential Decree No 641 /72 ), which, as
                                                                          regards the procedural rules relating to judicial actions
     — not establishing programmes for the reduction of                   seeking to secure repayment of charges paid in breach of
         pollution, in accordance with Article 5 of Directive             Council Directive 69/335/EEC ( 2 ), provides for a
         79/923/EEC ,                                                     three-year prescription period running from the date of
                                                                          payment, where such prescription period is not laid
     — not setting values, in accordance with Article 3 of                down by national law for claims for the recovery of sums
         Directive 79/923/EEC, for the parameters listed at               undulv paid as between private persons ?
 ---pagebreak--- 24 . 8 . 96              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 247/ 11
3 . If the answer to the preceding question is in the                          Removal from the register of Case C-306/95 ( )
      affirmative, the Court of Justice is asked to rule whether                                  ( 96/C 247/21 )
      the Community legal order is compatible with a national
      provision which provides that a prescription period
      should start to run ( to the detriment of a citizen of a
      Member State relying on the provisions of a directive in           By order of 29 April 1996 , the President of the Court of
      order to obtain repayment of a charge which was unduly             Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      collected ) before that directive was correctly transposed         from the register of Case C-306/95 : Commission of the
      into national law .                                                European Communities v. United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                         and Northern Ireland .
(!) 1993 | ECR 1-1915 .
( 2 ) O } No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                            of 5 June 1996                                                       of 6 June 1996
in Case T-398/94 : Kahn Scheepvaart BV v. Commission of                  in Case T-262/94 : Jean Baiwir v. Commission of the
                   the European Communities ( 1 )                                          European Communities ( ' )
(State aid — Shipbuilding — General aid scheme — Action                  (Officials — Plea of illegality — Consistency between the
                 for annulment — Admissibility)                          complaint and the application — New method of assessing
                             ( 96/C 247/22 )                             careerprofiles for Categories B, C and D at the Commission
                                                                         — List of officials considered most deserving ofpromotion
                                                                         — Articles 5 (3) and 45 of the StaffRegulations — Principle
                                                                         of non-discrimination — Manifest errors of assessment of
                  (Language of the case: English)                                    fact and law — Action for damages)
                                                                                ( 96 /C 247/23 )
In Case T-398/94 : Kahn Scheepvaart BV, established in
Rotterdam ( Netherlands ), represented by Thomas Jestaedt,
Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, and Tom R. Ottervanger, of the
Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                                (Language of the case: French)
at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen , 67 Rue Ermesinde, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Paul
Nemitz and Jean-Paul Keppenne ) — application for
annulment of the Commission 's decision of 25 October
 1994 authorizing for 1994 a German aid scheme for
shipbuilding — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber,              In Case T-262/94 : Jean Baiwir, an official of the
Extended Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President,              Commission of the European Communities , residing at
B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges;             Court-Saint-Etienne ( Belgium ), represented by Georges
J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has               Vandersanden , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
given a judgment on 5 June 1996 , in which it:                           service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                                                                         Sari, 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities ( Agents : first, Joseph Griesmar, then Julian
 1 . dismisses the application as inadmissible;                          Currall , both assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application
                                                                         for annulment of the list of officials considered most
                                                                         deserving of promotion to Grade B 4 under the 1993
2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.                               promotion procedure in so far as it does not contain the
                                                                         applicant's name, reinstatement of the applicant in his
                                                                         career as an official in Grade B 4/2 with effect from
(') OJ No C 400 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
                                                                          1 January 1993 and compensation for the non-material
                                                                         damage suffered — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
                                                                         Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, P. Lindh
                                                                         and J. D. Cooke , Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,
                                                                         for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 June 1996 , the
                                                                         operative part of which is as follows:


C 245/32              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1.9.2001
       Removal from the Register of Case T-36/00 (1)                          Removal from the Register of Case T-389/00 (1)
                         (2001/C 245/53)                                                        (2001/C 245/54)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 14 May 2001, the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                        By order of 5 June 2001, the President of the Fifth Chamber of
has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-36/00,
                                                                        the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder v Commission of
                                                                        ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-389/00,
the European Communities.
                                                                        Campina Melkunie B.V. v Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.00.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 95 of 24.3.01.


title: Case C-67/13 P: Appeal brought on 8 February 2013 by the Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2012 in Case T-491/07 CB v Commission

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/24

         Appeal brought on 8 February 2013 by the Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 29 November 2012 in Case T-491/07 CB v Commission
   (Case C-67/13 P)
   2013/C 114/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Groupement des cartes bancaires (CB) (represented by: F. Pradelles, avocat, J. Ruiz Calzado, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, BNP Paribas, BPCE, formerly Caisse Nationale des Caisses d’Epargne et de Prévoyance (CNCEP), Société générale

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2012 in Case T-491/07 CB v Commission;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for a new decision to be taken, unless the Court considers that it is sufficiently well informed to annul Commission Decision C(2007) 5060 final of 17 October 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] (Case COMP/D1/38.606 — Groupement des cartes bancaires ‘CB’);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs incurred by the appellant before this Court and before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on three grounds in support of its appeal.
   First, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in the application of the concept of restriction of competition by object.
   The General Court erred in law in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU concerning the content of the measures of the Groupement des cartes bancaires ‘CB’ (‘the Groupement’). More specifically, the General Court, inter alia, erroneously interpreted the case-law on the concept of restrictive practice of competition by object in considering that the abovementioned measures constituted a restriction by object, even though they were not sufficiently injurious to competition in themselves. Furthermore, the General Court erred in law by taking into account the ‘genesis’ of the adoption of the measures. It misinterpreted the case-law on the concept of the decision of association of undertakings, as an expression of the intention of the Groupement, and distorted the clear sense of the evidence put before it to find an anti-competitive intention on the part of the Groupement in the adoption of the measures in question.
   The General Court also erred in law in the application of Article 101(1) TFEU concerning the objectives of the measures of the Groupement. More specifically, the General Court misinterpreted the case-law in finding that the avoidance of free-riding, a legitimate objective referred to by the measures adopted by the Groupement and recognised by the General Court, could be taken into account only at the stage of Article 101(3) TFEU and not that of Article 101(1) TFEU.
   The General Court also erred in law in applying Article 101(1) TFEU concerning the correct context of the Groupement’s measures. More specifically, the General Court misinterpreted the case-law on the taking into account of the legal context by erring in relation to its obligation to take account of established experience. In addition, it misinterpreted, inter alia, the judgment of the Court of 20 November 2008 in Case C-209/07 Beef Industry Development and Barry Brothers, in wanting to apply that judgment to the present case, even though the two situations are fundamentally different. Furthermore, the General Court erred in law repeatedly in the taking into account of the economic context and the two-sided operation of the market in this case. Finally, the General Court ignored the case-law on the nature and scope of its review of complex economic assessments, by failing to carry out the minimum review for which it is responsible.
   Second, the appellant submits that the General Court erred in law in the application of the concept of restriction of competition by effect. The General Court erred in law in its examination of the effect of the Groupement’s measures. By not responding to the pleas in law raised by the appellant as to the alleged anti-competitive effects of the measures, it failed to comply with its obligation to state reasons.
   Third, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed the principles of proportionality and legal certainty by not annulling the injunction contained in the second paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2007) 5060 final. It infringed the principle of proportionality by maintaining the injunction imposed by the Commission, even though it was not only unnecessary to end the alleged infringement but also disproportionate with regard to the intended purpose. Furthermore, the General Court infringed the principle of legal certainty by not annulling the abovementioned injunction, even though the terms thereof are general and ambiguous, leaving the Groupement uncertain as to the measures which it may take to combat free-riding and ensure the protection of the ‘CB’ system.


title: Case C-220/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Iberenova Promociones S.A.U. v Comisión Superior de Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla de la Mancha

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 20 April 2016 — Iberenova Promociones S.A.U. v Comisión Superior de Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla de la Mancha
   (Case C-220/16)
   (2016/C 243/20)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha, Sala Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Segunda

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Iberenova Promociones S.A.U.

      Defendant: Comisión Superior de Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla de la Mancha

      Questions referred

               1.

               As the ‘support systems’ defined in Article 2(k) of Directive 2009/28/EC, including fiscal stimuli consisting of tax reductions, exemptions and refunds, are envisaged as a means of attaining the renewable energy consumption objectives provided for in the aforementioned Directive 2009/28/EC, are those stimuli or measures to be regarded as mandatory and binding on the Member States, having direct effect in so far as they may be invoked and relied on by the individuals concerned in all kinds of public, judicial and administrative proceedings?

               2.

               Since the list of ‘support systems’ mentioned in the previous question includes fiscal stimulus measures consisting of, ‘but … not restricted to’, tax reductions, exemptions and refunds, are those stimuli to be regarded as specifically including non-taxation, that is to say, the prohibition of any kind of specific and one-off levy, in addition to the general taxes levied on the economic activity and production of electricity, imposed on energy from renewable sources? The following question is also asked in this paragraph: [Similarly], is the general prohibition stated above also considered to include the prohibition of concurrence, double taxation or overlapping of multiple general or one-off taxes charged at different stages of the activity of generating renewable energy, affecting the same chargeable event taxed by the levy on wind power under consideration?

               3.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the negative and it is acknowledged that energy from renewable sources is taxable, for the purposes of the provisions of Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC, is the term ‘specific purposes’ to be interpreted as meaning that its objective must be exclusive and, furthermore, that the tax on renewable energy must, as regards its structure, be genuinely non-fiscal, and not merely budgetary or revenue-collecting in nature?

               4.

               In accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 2003/96/EC, which, when referring to the levels of taxation which Member States are to apply to the energy products and electricity takes as its reference the minimum levels prescribed by the Directive, which are understood to be the total of all direct and indirect taxes applied to those products at the time of release for consumption, should that total be understood as excluding from the level of taxation required by the Directive those national taxes which, as regards their structure and specific purposes, are not genuinely non-fiscal, as interpreted according to the reply to the previous question?

               5.

               Is the term ‘charge’ used in Article 13(1)(e) of Directive 2009/28/EC an autonomous concept of European law which is to be interpreted more broadly, as comprehensive and also synonymous with the concept of tax in general?

               6.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, the question we raise is the following: May the charges, referred to in the aforementioned Article 13(1)(e), payable by consumers, include only those levies or taxes which are designed to compensate, where appropriate, for the damage caused by the impact [of energy products and electricity] on the environment and seek to make good, using the revenue generated, the damage linked to that adverse impact or effect, but not those taxes or benefits which, applying to non-polluting energy, fulfil a primarily budgetary or tax-collecting purpose?


title: Case T-74/08: Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Now Pharm v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Orphan Designation Procedure — Request for designation of the medicinal product ‘Chelidonii radix special liquid extract’ ( ‘Ukrain’ ) as an orphan medicinal product — Commission decision refusing designation as an orphan medicinal product)

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/33

      Judgment of the General Court of 9 September 2010 — Now Pharm v Commission
      (Case T-74/08) (1)

      (Medicinal products for human use - Orphan Designation Procedure - Request for designation of the medicinal product ‘Chelidonii radix special liquid extract’ (‘Ukrain’) as an orphan medicinal product - Commission decision refusing designation as an orphan medicinal product)
      (2010/C 288/63)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Now Pharm AG (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: initially C. Kaletta and I.-J. Tegebauer and subsequently C. Kaletta, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Schima and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 6132, of 4 December 2007 refusing the designation of the medicinal product ‘Chelidonii radix special liquid extract’ as an orphan medicinal product under Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products (OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the application;

                  2.

                  Orders Now Pharm AG to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case T-182/04: Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Daniel Van der Spree against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/18

         Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Daniel Van der Spree against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-182/04)
   (2004/C 179/35)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 2004 by Daniel Van der Spree, residing at Overijse (Belgium), represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision establishing finally the applicant's career development review covering the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of his action, the applicant pleads, first, breach of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations and of the special measures applicable to the 2001-2002 transitional appraisal exercise. The applicant also pleads breach of the duty to state reasons, inconsistency between the comments and the marks awarded and manifest error of assessment. The applicant relies, further, on infringement of the rights of the defence in that the decision was based on an internal audit report of which the applicant was not given notice and on alleged appraisal criteria of which, the applicant submits, he was not informed.


title: Case T-337/00: Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Sarah Tex Textil Groß- und Einzelhandel GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 4/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         6.1.2001
Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Anthony Gold-                       Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Sarah Tex Textil
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-                    Groß- und Einzelhandel GmbH against the Commission
                                ties                                                        of the European Communities
                        (Case T-335/00)                                                             (Case T-337/00)
                          (2001/C 4/12)                                                              (2001/C 4/13)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 7 November 2000 by Sarah Tex
European Communities on 7 November 2000 by Anthony                       Textil Groß- und Einzelhandel GmbH, Essen (Germany),
Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,             represented by Dietrich Ehle, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne.
Merriman White, London (UK).
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     annul Commission Decision REM 32/99 of 29 June 2000;
—     order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of
      EUR 1 000 000 to the applicant;                                    —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
—     order the amount of damages to bear default interest at
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
      the annual rate of 4,5 % from the date of the judgment
      until the actual payment;
                                                                         The action concerns a decision by the Commission of 29 June
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.             2000, refusing an application by the Federal Republic of
                                                                         Germany for leave to waive payment by the applicant of
                                                                         import duties of DEM 1 213 442 in respect of the importation
                                                                         of textile goods from Bangladesh. Post-clearance recovery of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          the duties was demanded of the applicant on account of
                                                                         the revocation of preference certificates of the competent
                                                                         authorities in Bangladesh.
The applicant in the present case has studied law and in 1999
completed the Bar Vocational Course, a prerequisite for the
admission to the Bar of England and Wales and the practice of            The applicant accuses the Commission of infringing its right
law as a barrister.                                                      to a fair hearing, as at the time of the inspection of the files the
                                                                         applicant was not presented with all the relevant supporting
                                                                         documents. Nor could the applicant be accused of any obvious
He has lodged under Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17, a             negligence for the purposes of Article 239 of the Community
complaint relating to the requirement in certain circumstances           Customs Code. It had concluded normal commercial trans-
that a barrister should supply legal services only if briefed or         actions with producers and exporters in Bangladesh, whereby
instructed by a professional client. This rule should constitute         it was not apparent that some of the goods did not originate
restriction of competition contrary to Article 85 (now                   in Bangladesh. The applicant had thus acted in good faith on
Article 81) of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as consumers of legal             importation.
services are denied access to the market in legal services.
                                                                         Furthermore, the Commission failed to take account of
The applicant submits that, from a general point of view, the            maladministration by the Bangladeshi authorities in the issue
defendant incurred non-contractual liability by committing a             of certificates of origin and monitoring of the origin require-
misuse of power by refusing to adopt forthwith all measures              ments. Even the Commission itself had acted improperly, in
necessary to prevent the misrepresentation of the legal status           that, inter alia, it did not sufficiently supervise compliance with
of lawyers known as barristers by the Bar Council, in order to           the rules on origin and failed to issue a timely warning to
seal off the market for the supply of legal services to Lawyers          importers.
entitled to practice as barristers by concealing the Community
nature and effects of the professional qualification and the
                                                                         The applicant further submits that the principles of the
professional title required to be awarded by a Law school in
                                                                         protection of persons acting in good faith, equal treatment,
the United Kingdom on completion of the theoretical and
                                                                         proportionality and equity in individual circumstances call for
practical training for access to the profession of barrister.
                                                                         remission of the duties demanded post-clearance.


title: Case C-555/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 91/440/EEC — Article 6(3) and Annex II — Directive 2001/14/EC — Articles 4(2) and 14(2) — Infrastructure manager — Organisational and decision making independence — Holding company structure — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-555/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(3) and Annex II - Directive 2001/14/EC - Articles 4(2) and 14(2) - Infrastructure manager - Organisational and decision making independence - Holding company structure - Incomplete transposition)
   2013/C 114/06
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braun, B. Simon, R. Vidal Puig and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer and U. Zechner, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed time-limit, all the measures necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and with Articles 4(2) and 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case C-236/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Diputacíon General de Aragón

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 25 April 2016 — Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED) v Diputacíon General de Aragón
   (Case C-236/16)
   (2016/C 260/30)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Segunda

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Asociación Nacional de Grandes Empresas de Distribución (ANGED)

      Respondent: Diputacíon General de Aragón

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU be interpreted as precluding a regional tax stated to be levied on the environmental damage caused by the use of facilities and amenities attached to the business and trade carried on in retail establishments with large sales and parking areas for their customers, provided that the public sales area exceeds 500 m2, but that applies regardless of whether the retail establishments are actually situated outside or inside the consolidated urban area and is borne in most cases by undertakings of other Member States, bearing in mind that the tax (i) is not actually levied on traders who own several retail establishments, irrespective of their total public sales area, if none of them has a public sales area exceeding 500 m2, even if one or more of them exceeds that threshold but the basis of assessment does not exceed 2 000 m2, while it does apply to traders who own a single retail establishment with a public sales area exceeding those thresholds; and (ii) is not levied on retail establishments engaged in the exclusive sale of machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies; construction materials, plumbing materials, doors and windows, for sale only to professionals; fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments; motor vehicles, in dealerships and repair workshops; nurseries for gardening and cultivation; and motor fuel, irrespective of their total public sales area?

               2.

               Must Article 107(1) TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the following constitutes State aid prohibited under that provision: the fact that the IDMGAV is not actually levied on retail establishments with a public sales area not exceeding 500 m2 or on those exceeding that threshold provided that the basis of assessment does not exceed 2 000 m2, or on retail establishments engaged in the exclusive sale of machinery, vehicles, tools and industrial supplies; construction materials, plumbing materials, doors and windows, for sale only to professionals; fittings for individual, conventional and specialist establishments; motor vehicles, in dealerships and repair workshops; nurseries for gardening and cultivation, and motor fuel?


title: Case T-92/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  8 December 2005  — Moren Abat v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Multiple-choice questions — Accuracy of the answers on the correction form — Action manifestly unfounded in law)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/32

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 2005 — Moren Abat v Commission
   (Case T-92/04) (1)

   (Officials - Open competition - Multiple-choice questions - Accuracy of the answers on the correction form - Action manifestly unfounded in law)
   (2006/C 48/62)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Marta Cristina Moren Abat (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Lebitsch, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Krämer, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Application for
   Annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition COM/A/1/02 to award the applicant, in respect of the pre-selection stage, a number of marks which did not allow her admission to the subsequent tests in that competition
   Operative part of the Order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-42/11: Action brought on 19 January 2011 — Universal v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/28

         Action brought on 19 January 2011 — Universal v Commission
   (Case T-42/11)
   2011/C 80/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Universal Corp. (Richmond, United States) (represented by: C.R.A. Swaak, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision set out in the letters of 12 and 30 November 2010; and/or

               —

               Declare that the applicant cannot be held liable to pay for any part or all of the fine imposed in this case until a definitive judgment in case T-12/06 Deltafina v Commission or any follow-on proceedings is issued; and

               —

               Condemn the Commission to the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of the Commission Decision contained in the letter from the Commission to Universal Corporation, dated 12 November 2010, and confirmed by the letter dated 30 November 2010, requiring the latter to pay the joint and several fine imposed on Universal Corporation and Deltafina SpA in case COMP/C.38.281.B2 — Raw Tobacco Italy of 20 October 2005 following the withdrawal of case T-34/06 Universal Corp. v Commission but prior to the resolution of case T-12/06 Deltafina SpA v Commission and any follow-on proceedings.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated;

                           —

                           The contested decision is vitiated insofar as the fine is fully covered by the guarantee provided by its subsidiary Deltafina. The applicant is only jointly and severally liable as the 100 % parent company for the payment of the fine imposed by the Commission on Deltafina for its direct participation in the infringement. The withdrawal of the application for annulment lodged by the applicant is therefore irrelevant to the question of when the fine must be paid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations;

                           —

                           The contested decision violates the principle of protection of legitimate expectations in relation to the validity of the bank guarantee until the conclusion of the Deltafina proceedings. On the basis of the Commission's acceptance of a bank guarantee relating to the application for annulment by Deltafina, the Commission created the legitimate expectation that it would refrain from seeking payment of the fine prior to a definitive judgment in case T-12/06. The Commission further violated the applicant's legitimate expectation of consistent treatment by the Commission of the applicant and Deltafina as a single undertaking for the purposes of liability and enforcement.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation of good administration flowing from Article 266 TFEU;

                           —

                           The contested decision violates the obligation of good administration flowing from Article 266 TFEU by requiring premature payment of the joint fine pending the outcome of the Deltafina proceedings, with which the Commission must comply. In the event that Deltafina is wholly or partly successful the Commission will be obliged to reduce or eliminate the amount for which Universal is held jointly and severally liable.


title: Case C-480/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 September 2016 — Fidelity Funds v Skatteministeriet

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 5 September 2016 — Fidelity Funds v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-480/16)
   (2016/C 419/42)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fidelity Funds

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Intervener: NN (L) SICAV

      Question referred

   Is a tax regime, such as that in the main proceedings, under which non-Danish undertakings for collective investment covered by Council Directive 85/611/EEC (1) (the UCITS Directive) are taxed at source on dividends from Danish companies, contrary to Article 56 TEC (Article 63 TFEU) on free movement of capital or Article 49 TEC (Article 56 TFEU) on freedom to provide services, where equivalent Danish undertakings for collective investment can obtain an exemption for tax at source, either because they in fact make a minimum distribution to their members in return for retention of tax at source, or technically a minimum distribution is calculated, on which tax at source is retained in relation to the undertakings’ members?

      (1)  Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (OJ 1985 L 375, p. 3).


title: Case T-509/12: Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014  — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Nanso Group (TEEN VOGUE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark TEEN VOGUE — Earlier national word mark VOGUE — Admissibility — Formulation of the form of order sought — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity or similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Partial refusal to register)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 27 February 2014 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Nanso Group (TEEN VOGUE)
   (Case T-509/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark TEEN VOGUE - Earlier national word mark VOGUE - Admissibility - Formulation of the form of order sought - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity or similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Partial refusal to register))
   2014/C 102/56
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, New York, United States of America) (represented by C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Nanso Group Oy (Nokia, Finland) (represented by M. Tuominen, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2012 (case R 147/2011-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Nanso Group Oy and Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc., to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case C-259/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Plovdiv (Bulgaria), lodged on 24 May 2012 — Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite — Plovdiv v ‘RODOPI-М 91’ OOD

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Plovdiv (Bulgaria), lodged on 24 May 2012 — Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite — Plovdiv v ‘RODOPI-М 91’ OOD
   (Case C-259/12)
   2012/C 243/13
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Plovdiv

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite — Plovdiv

      Respondent:‘RODOPI-М 91’ OOD

      Questions referred

               1.1.

               Does the principle of VAT neutrality permit a Member State to impose a fine for failure to show cancellation of an invoice on time even though that cancellation is later shown in the accounts and the party concerned has paid the VAT resulting from cancellation plus the interest thereon?

               1.2.

               Are the following circumstances of significance in connection with the first question:

                           —

                           The period within which cancellation of an invoice should supposedly be shown is 14 days from the end of the calendar month in which the cancellation takes place;

                           —

                           Cancellation of the invoice was in fact shown one month after the end of the period within which cancellation should supposedly have taken place;

                           —

                           The VAT owed plus interest thereon was forwarded to the Treasury?

               2.

               Do Articles 242 and 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) permit the Member States to impose a fine on taxpayers who have allegedly failed to fulfil on time their duty to show circumstances in their accounts that are of significance to the calculation of VAT where that fine amounts to the VAT not paid on time if that default is later remedied and the VAT owed is paid in full plus interest thereon?

               3.

               Is significance to be attributed to the fact that the Treasury has not been adversely affected as the party concerned later showed cancellation of the invoice and paid all of the VAT plus interest thereon?

               4.

               Does the imposition of a fine in the full amount of VAT already paid plus interest thereon contravene the principle of proportionality?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-215/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 18 April 2016 — Elecdey Carcelén, S.A. v Comisión Superior de Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla la Mancha

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 18 April 2016 — Elecdey Carcelén, S.A. v Comisión Superior de Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla la Mancha
   (Case C-215/16)
   (2016/C 243/18)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha, Sala Contencioso-Administrativo, Sección Segunda

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Elecdey Carcelén, S.A.

      Defendant: Comisión Superior de Hacienda de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla la Mancha

      Questions referred

               1.

               As the ‘support systems’ defined in Article 2(k) of Directive 2009/28/EC, including fiscal stimuli consisting of tax reductions, exemptions and refunds, are envisaged as a means of attaining the renewable energy consumption objectives provided for in the aforementioned Directive 2009/28/EC, are those stimuli or measures to be regarded as mandatory and binding on the Member States, having direct effect in so far as they may be invoked and relied on by the individuals concerned in all kinds of public, judicial and administrative proceedings?

               2.

               Since the list of ‘support systems’ mentioned in the previous question includes fiscal stimulus measures consisting of, ‘but … not restricted to’, tax reductions, exemptions and refunds, are those stimuli to be regarded as specifically including non-taxation, that is to say, the prohibition of any kind of specific and one-off levy, in addition to the general taxes levied on the economic activity and production of electricity, imposed on energy from renewable sources? The following question is also asked in this paragraph: [Similarly], is the general prohibition stated above also considered to include the prohibition of concurrence, double taxation or overlapping of multiple general or one-off taxes charged at different stages of the activity of generating renewable energy, affecting the same chargeable event taxed by the levy on wind power under consideration?

               3.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the negative and it is acknowledged that energy from renewable sources is taxable, for the purposes of the provisions of Article 1(2) of Directive 2008/118/EC, is the term ‘specific purposes’ to be interpreted as meaning that its objective must be exclusive and, furthermore, that the tax on renewable energy must, as regards its structure, be genuinely non-fiscal, and not merely budgetary or revenue-collecting in nature?

               4.

               In accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of Directive 2003/96/EC, which, when referring to the levels of taxation which Member States are to apply to the energy products and electricity takes as its reference the minimum levels prescribed by the Directive, which are understood to be the total of all direct and indirect taxes applied to those products at the time of release for consumption, should that total be understood as excluding from the level of taxation required by the Directive those national taxes which, as regards their structure and specific purposes, are not genuinely non-fiscal, as interpreted according to the reply to the previous question?

               5.

               Is the term ‘charge’ used in Article 13(1)(e) of Directive 2009/28/EC an autonomous concept of European law which is to be interpreted more broadly, as comprehensive and also synonymous with the concept of tax in general?

               6.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, the question we raise is the following: May the charges, referred to in the aforementioned Article 13(1)(e), payable by consumers, include only those levies or taxes which are designed to compensate, where appropriate, for the damage caused by the impact [of energy products and electricity] on the environment and seek to make good, using the revenue generated, the damage linked to that adverse impact or effect, but not those taxes or benefits which, applying to non-polluting energy, fulfil a primarily budgetary or tax-collecting purpose?


title: Case C-382/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 29 July 2010 — Erich Albrecht, Thomas Neumann, Van-Ly Sundara, Alexander Svoboda, Stefan Toth v Amt der Wiener Landesregierung

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien (Austria) lodged on 29 July 2010 — Erich Albrecht, Thomas Neumann, Van-Ly Sundara, Alexander Svoboda, Stefan Toth v Amt der Wiener Landesregierung
   (Case C-382/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Erich Albrecht, Thomas Neumann, Van-Ly Sundara, Alexander Svoboda, Stefan Toth

      Respondent: Amt der Wiener Landesregierung

      Questions referred

               1.

               What are the criteria which determine unfitness for human consumption under paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004? (1) Does such unfitness already exist where a foodstuff offered for sale could conceivably be touched or sneezed upon by a would-be purchaser?

               2.

               What are the criteria which determine injuriousness to health under paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004? Does such injuriousness already exist where a foodstuff offered for sale could conceivably be touched or sneezed upon by a would-be purchaser?

               3.

               What are the criteria which determine contamination under paragraph 3 of Chapter IX of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004? Does such contamination already exist where a foodstuff offered for sale could conceivably be touched or sneezed upon by a would-be purchaser?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs; OJ 2004 L 139, p. 1


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 April 2004 in Joined Cases T-124/02 and T-156/02: The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Regulations (EC) Nos 40/94 and 2868/95 — Costs of the opposition proceedings — Partial withdrawal of the trade mark application — Withdrawal of opposition — Reimbursement of the appeal fees — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/37

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 April 2004
   in Joined Cases T-124/02 and T-156/02: The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Regulations (EC) Nos 40/94 and 2868/95 - Costs of the opposition proceedings - Partial withdrawal of the trade mark application - Withdrawal of opposition - Reimbursement of the appeal fees - Duty to state reasons)
   (2004/C 118/78)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases T-124/02 and T-156/02: The Sunrider Corp., established in Torrance, California (United States of America), represented by A. Kockläuner, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn, established in Bremen (Germany) in Case T-124/02 and Friesland Brands SV, established in Leeuwarden (the Netherlands) in Case T-156/02 - actions, in Case T-124/02, against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2002 (Case R-386/2000-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Vitakraft-Werke Wührmann & Sohn and The Sunrider Corp., and, in Case T-156/02, against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 February 2002 (Case R-34/2000-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Friesland Brands BV and The Sunrider Corp. - the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: N.J. Forwood, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Assistant Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 29.6.2002


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 27 November 1997 in Case C-356/95 (application for a preliminary ruling by the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): Matthias Witt v. Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft (Common agricultural policy - Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 - Support system for producers of certain arable crops - Establishment of production regions - Obligation to indicate the criteria used - Relevance of soil fertility)

text:
7.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 41/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  2. The first subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Regulation
                      (Sixth Chamber)                                     (EEC) No 1765/92 must be interpreted as meaning
                                                                          that a Member State which, under the third sentence
                   of 27 November 1997                                    of the second subparagraph of Article 2 (2) of that
in Case C-356/95 (application for a preliminary ruling by                 Regulation, has not designated its whole territory as a
the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Oberverwaltungsgericht):                     regional base area but merely different parts of it, is
 Matthias Witt v. Amt für Land- und Wasserwirtschaft (1)                  entitled to establish the whole territory of a specific
                                                                          regional base area as a production region, and that the
(Common agricultural policy Ð Regulation (EEC)                            specific characteristics that influence yields do not
No 1765/92 Ð Support system for producers of certain                      require regional base areas to be further subdivided
arable crops Ð Establishment of production regions Ð                      into different production regions.
Obligation to indicate the criteria used Ð Relevance of
                        soil fertility)                              (1) OJ C 16, 20.1.1996.
                        (98/C 41/01)
              (Language of the case: German)
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         published in the European Court Reports)                                            (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 November 1997
In Case C-356/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Schleswig-Holsteinisches                     in Case C-369/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary                   the Tribunale di Salerno): Somalfruit SpA, Camar SpA v.
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                  Ministero delle Finanze, Ministero del Commercio con
between Matthias Witt and Amt für Land- und                                                     l'Estero (1)
Wasserwirtschaft, on the interpretation of the first
                                                                     (Bananas Ð Common organization of the markets Ð
subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     Import arrangements Ð ACP States Ð Somalia Ð Validity
No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992 establishing a support
                                                                     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 and Commission
system for producers of certain arable crops (OJ L 181,
                                                                       Regulations (EEC) No 1442/93 and (EEC) No 1443/93)
1.7.1992, p. 12) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber) composed
of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, R.                                                 (98/C 41/02)
Schintgen, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray and
G. Hirsch, Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; D.                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, gave a
judgment on 27 November 1997, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
1. The first subparagraph of Article 3 (1) of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 of 30 June 1992                      In Case C-369/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
    establishing a support system for producers of certain           of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale (District Court),
    arable crops does not require the Member States, in              Salerno (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
    establishing production regions, to indicate the criteria        pending before that court between Somalfruit SpA, Camar
    used in the provisions implementing that Regulation.             SpA and Ministero delle Finanze, Ministero del


title: Case C-285/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 June 2014  — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects d’Auvergne v Brasserie Bouquet SA

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 11 June 2014 — Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects d’Auvergne v Brasserie Bouquet SA
   (Case C-285/14)
   2014/C 261/23
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Directeur régional des douanes et droits indirects d’Auvergne

      Respondent: Brasserie Bouquet SA

      Question referred

   Must Article 4(2) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘operate under licence’ refers exclusively to operation under a licence to exploit a patent or trade mark, or can that provision be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘operate under licence’ refers to operation in accordance with a production process belonging to a third party and authorised by that party?

      (1)  OJ L 316, p. 21.