title: Case C-48/10: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/1/EC — Integrated pollution prevention and control — Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations — Obligation to ensure the operation of such installations in accordance with the requirements of the directive)

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 November 2010 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-48/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/1/EC - Integrated pollution prevention and control - Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations - Obligation to ensure the operation of such installations in accordance with the requirements of the directive)
   2011/C 13/24
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 5(1) of Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (OJ 2008 L 24, p. 8) — Installations which may have an effect on emissions into the air, water or soil and on pollution — Conditions for the authorisation of existing installations

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               declares that, by having failed to take the necessary measures to ensure that the competent authorities see to it, by means of permits in accordance with Articles 6 and 8 Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control or, as appropriate, by reconsidering and, where necessary, by updating the conditions, that existing installations operate in accordance with the requirements of Articles 3, 7, 9, 10 and 13, Article 14(a) and (b) and Article 15(2) of the directive not later than 30 October 2007, without prejudice to specific European Union legislation, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(1) of that directive;

               2.

               orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-54/07: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2011 — Vtesse Networks Ltd v Commission (Application for annulment — State aid — Telecommunications — Tax on non-domestic property of undertakings in the United Kingdom — Decision finding that the measure at issue does not constitute aid — No individual concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/18

         Order of the General Court of 21 January 2011 — Vtesse Networks Ltd v Commission
   (Case T-54/07) (1)

   (Application for annulment - State aid - Telecommunications - Tax on non-domestic property of undertakings in the United Kingdom - Decision finding that the measure at issue does not constitute aid - No individual concern - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 80/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vtesse Networks Ltd (Hertford, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: H. Mercer, Barrister, and J. Ballard, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and H. van Vliet, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicant: AboveNet Communications UK Ltd, (London, United Kingdom); Gamma Telecom Ltd (Newbury, Berkshire, United Kingdom) and VTL (UK) Ltd (Egham, Surrey, United Kingdom), represented by I. Forrester QC, C. Arhold and K. Struckmann, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: British Telecommunications plc, (London, United Kingdom), (represented by G. Robert and C. Berg, Solicitors) and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by V. Jackson, Agent, and by C. Vajda QC and T. Morshead, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2006/951/EC of 12 October 2006 on the United Kingdom’s application of the tax on non-domestic property to telecommunications infrastructure in the United Kingdom (No C-4/2005 (ex NN 57/2004, ex CP 26/2004)) (OJ 2006 L 383, p. 70)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Vtesse Networks Ltd shall bear its own costs and pay the costs of the European Commission.

               3.

               The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, AboveNet Communications UK Ltd, Gamma Telecom Ltd, VTL (UK) Ltd and British Telecommunications plc shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Case T-596/14: Action brought on 11 August 2014  — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/18

         Action brought on 11 August 2014 — Syriatel Mobile Telecom v Council
   (Case T-596/14)
   2014/C 361/26
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Syriatel Mobile Telecom (Joint Stock Company) (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: E. Ruchat and C. Cornet d'Elzius, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare the applicant’s action admissible and well founded;

               —

               In consequence, annul Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 and its subsequent implementing acts in so far as they concern the applicant;

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-592/14 Makhlouf v Council
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 290, p. 13.


title: Case T-90/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 November 2007 — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative and word Community trade mark Ω OMEGA — Earlier national word mark OMEGA — Relative ground for refusal — Reliance by the applicant for the Community trade mark on a national trade mark identical to that applied for and earlier than the national mark cited in opposition — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 November 2007 — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)
   (Case T-90/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative and word Community trade mark Ω OMEGA - Earlier national word mark OMEGA - Relative ground for refusal - Reliance by the applicant for the Community trade mark on a national trade mark identical to that applied for and earlier than the national mark cited in opposition - Likelihood of confusion)
   (2007/C 315/65)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Omega SA (Bienne, Switzerland) (represented initially by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón and E. Armijo Chávarri, and subsequently by P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Omega Engineering, Inc. (Stamford, Connecticut, United States) (represented by: C. Algar, Solicitor)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 December 2004 (Case R 330/2002-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Omegal Engineering, Inc. and Omega SA.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

                  Orders Omega SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.


title: Case C-258/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank 's-Gravenhage by decision of 2 July 1999 in the case of BASF AG v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom

text:
18.9.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 265/3
3. If the answer to question 1 is ‘no’, is a natural person who               iv. the fact that the applicant has had access to the social
   is a national of the Czech Republic nonetheless entitled, in                    welfare system of the Member State and has depended
   domestic legal proceedings brought for the purposes of                          upon it financially whilst establishing himself as a
   challenging a decision of the relevant national authorities                     self-employed person?
   to refuse him admission to establish himself in business
   pursuant to the Agreement, to invoke Article 45 of the                7. If a Member State is not entitled to refuse entry to a person
   Agreement in order to challenge the lawfulness of a                        seeking to establish himself under the Agreement on the
   Member State’s laws and regulations regarding entry, stay                  sole basis that prior entry clearance has not been obtained,
   and establishment of natural persons, and if so on what                    is it legitimate for the competent authorities to grant such
   legal basis?                                                               a person leave to enter only if his application clearly and
                                                                              manifestly satisfies the same substantive criteria as would
                                                                              have been applied had he sought prior entry clearance?
Requirement to obtain prior permission before travelling
                                                                         (1) Europe Agreement establishing an association between the Euro-
                                                                             pean Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and
                                                                             the Czech Republic, of the other part (OJ L 360, 31.12.94, p. 2.)
                                                                         (2) UK and EC legislation — Immigration Rules.
4. If the answer to question 1 or question 3 is ‘yes’, do
   Articles 45 and/or 59 of the Agreement permit a Member
   State to require a person who wishes to travel to a Member
   State purely to establish himself as a self-employed person
   under the Agreement to apply for and obtain prior ‘entry
   clearance’ (that is, prior permission to travel to the State
   for that specific purpose)?
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondisse-
5. If the answer to question 4 is ‘yes’:                                 mentsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage by decision of 2 July 1999
                                                                         in the case of BASF AG v Bureau voor de Industriële
                                                                                Eigendom
   a) is a Member State entitled to make the grant of
        such prior entry clearance conditional upon satisfying
        substantive requirements relating to establishment                                         (Case C-258/99)
        such as those contained in paragraph 212 of
        HC 395 (2); and                                                                            (1999/C 265/05)
   b) may a Member State refuse admission into its territory             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        to a person seeking to establish himself as a self-              European Communities by decision of 2 July 1999 from the
        employed person under the Agreement on the sole                  Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage (District Court, The
        ground that such prior entry clearance has not been              Hague), which was received at the Court Registry on 12 July
        obtained?                                                        1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of BASF AG
                                                                         v Bureau voor de Industriële Eigendom on the following
                                                                         questions:
6. Where such a person has not been granted permission to
   enter the territory of the Member State on any other basis,           I. a. In light of the definitions laid down in Article 1.2,
   is the answer to question 5 affected (and if so how) by any                     1.3 and 1.8 of Regulation (EC) No 1610/96 (1) (‘the
   of the following factors:                                                       regulation’), must ‘product’ within the meaning of
                                                                                Article 3 of the regulation be understood as meaning
                                                                                an active substance or the combination of active
   i.   the fact that, on initial arrival at the border of the                     substances, as described in more detail in Article 1.3,
        Member State, the person did not seek admission                            as they occur naturally or by manufacture, including
        pursuant to the Agreement but on some other basis,                         any impurity inevitably resulting from the manufacturing
        which was subsequently rejected;                                           process?
   ii. the length of time which has elapsed between the                       b. Are identical products involved, for the purposes of
        applicant’s initial arrival at the border of the Member                    the regulation, in the case where, by means of a new
        State and the date of his subsequent application for                       process, a plant protection product is obtained which
        establishment as a self-employed person pursuant to                        contains a longer amount of unavoidable impurities
        the Agreement;                                                             than an existing plant protection product with the
                                                                                same active component?
   iii. the extent of any restrictions placed on the applicant                c. Does the issue of whether a new authorisation must be
        by the national authorities during that time, pursuant                     obtained for this new plant protection product have
        to powers contained in national immigration law, as                        any bearing on the answer to Question I.b. and, if so,
        to his liberty or employment/occupation;                                   how much of a bearing does it have?
 ---pagebreak--- C 265/4                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.9.1999
II. Are the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(a) and (d) of         1. Can Polish and Czech nationals rely directly on the
     the regulation satisfied if a plant protection product has           Agreements in the sense that they are entitled, vis-à-vis a
     been produced by means of a patented process as a result             Member State, to claim that they derive a right to admission
     of which it contains a lower amount of unavoidable                   and residence from the right laid down in Article 44 of the
     impurities than an existing plant protection product with            Agreement with Poland/Article 45 of the Agreement with
     the same active substance, a new authorisation has been              the Czech Republic to take up and pursue economic
     obtained for this new plant protection product, and the              activities as self-employed persons and to set up and
     patent covering the manufacturing process in question was            manage undertakings, irrespective of the policy which the
     designated as the basic patent within the meaning of                 Member State in question pursues in this regard?
     Article 3(1), opening passage and subparagraph (a)?
(1) OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30.                                              2. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative: is a
                                                                          Member State free undet Article 58 of the Agreement with
                                                                          Poland/ Article 59 of the Agreement with the Czech
                                                                          Republic to make the right to admission and residence
                                                                          subject to specific conditions such as those contained in
                                                                          the policy followed by the Netherlands, which include the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale                     condition that the alien must be able, by carrying on
Amministrative Regionale per la Lombardia (Lombardy                       his business, to receive adequate means of support [in
Regional Administrative Court), third Section, by order                   accordance with Chapter A4/4.2.1. of the 1994 VC, this
of that court of 27 November 1998 in the case of Excelsior                means a net income which is at least equal to the
SNC di Pedrotti Bruna & C., formerly Excelsior SNC di                     subsistence level within the meaning of the Algemene
Costa Rodolfo & C. v Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale                   Bijstandswet (General Law on Welfare)]?
di Milano and CIFTAT, a limited liability cooperative
                             society
                                                                       3. Does Article 44 of the Agreement with Poland/Article 45
                        (Case C-260/99)                                   of the Agreement with the Czech Republic allow prosti-
                                                                          tution to be excluded from the notion of ‘economic
                        (1999/C 265/06)                                   activities as self-employed persons’ on the ground that
                                                                          prostitution does not come within the description in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          Article 44(4), opening words and (c), of the Agreement
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Amminis-
                                                                          with Poland/Article 45(4), opening words and (c), of the
trative Regionale per la Lombardia (Lombardy Regional
                                                                          Agreement with the Czech Republic for reasons of a moral
Administrative Court), third Section, of 27 November 1998,
                                                                          nature, on the ground that prostitution is prohibited in (a
which was received at the Court Registry on 13 July 1999, for
                                                                          majority of) the associate countries, and on the ground
a preliminary ruling in the case of Excelsior SNC di Pedrotti
                                                                          that it gives rise to problems concerning the freedom of
Bruna & C., formerly Excelsior SNC di Costa Rodolfo & C. v
                                                                          action of prostitutes and their independence which are
Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano and CIFTAT, a
                                                                          difficult to monitor?
limited liability cooperative society on the following question:
May the definition of a body governed by public law contained          4. Do Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty and
in Article 1(b) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June             Article 44 of the Agreement with Poland/Article 45 of
1992 be deemed applicable to the Ente Autonomo Fiera                      the Agreement with the Czech Republic permit such a
Internazionale di Milano?                                                 distinction to be drawn between the notions of ‘activities
                                                                          as self-employed persons’ and ‘economic activities as
(1) OJ 1992 L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                     self-employed persons’ featuring in those respective pro-
                                                                          visions that the activities carried out by a prostitute in a
                                                                          self-employed capacity come within the term used in
                                                                          Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty but not within
                                                                          that used in those articles of the Agreements?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondisse-
mentsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, sitting in Amsterdam,
by decision of 15 July 1999 in the case of A.M. Jany,                  5. If the answer to the previous question is that the distinction
E. Padevetova, R. Zacalova, Z. Hrubcinova, S. Über-                      therein referred to is permissible:
lackerova, and K.A. Szepietowska v Staatssecretaris van
                             Justitie
                                                                          a) Is it compatible with Article 44 of the Agreement with
                        (Case C-268/99)                                        Poland/Article 45 of the Agreement with the Czech
                                                                               Republic and the freedom of establishment which
                        (1999/C 265/07)                                        those provisions are intended to realise to impose
                                                                               minimum conditions on the self-employed persons
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         referred to in paragraph (3) of those articles in regard
European Communities by decision of 15 July 1999 from the                      to the range of their activities and also to impose
Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage (District Court, The                    restrictions such as that:
Hague), sitting in Amsterdam, which was received at the Court
Registry or 19 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of A.M. Jany, E. Padevetova R. Zacalova, Z. Hrubcinova,                   — the operator must perform skilled work;
S. Überlackerova, and K.A. Szepietowska v Staatssecretaris van
Justitie on the following questions:                                           — a business strategy must exist;


title: Case T-26/16: Action brought on 22 January 2016 — Greece v Commission

text:
               29.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 111/29

         Action brought on 22 January 2016 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-26/16)
   (2016/C 111/35)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, O. Tsirkinidou and A.-E.Vasilopoulou)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested Commission implementing decision of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2015) 7716 and published in the Official Journal of the EU on 20 November 2015 at OJ L 303, p. 35, as regards the parts thereof by which, following investigations IR/2009/004/GR and IR/2009/0017/GR, one-off and flat-rate financial corrections totalling EUR 11 534 827,97 were imposed on the Hellenic Republic for delays in recovery procedures, non-reporting and weaknesses generally in the debt management procedures, by the list in the annexes thereto;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.
   More specifically, the Hellenic Republic puts forward four pleas in respect of the flat-rate financial correction of 10 % which is imposed for the 2011 financial year.

               1.

               The first plea is derived from the lack of a legal basis for imposing a flat-rate financial correction.

               2.

               By the second plea, regarding the supposed delays in the recovery procedure, it is submitted that the imposition of corrections in 2015 for weaknesses in the control system, which relate to cases even before 2000 — following findings which were surmised for the first time in 2011, in breach of the rights of defence of the Greek authorities, upon which the Commission placed a disproportionate burden — infringes the general principle of legal certainty and that the European Union should act timeously and in any event within a reasonable period.

               3.

               By the third plea, regarding the supposed failures in the procedure of recovery by offsetting, it is submitted that the Commission decision lacks entirely a sufficient and definite statement of reasons and in any event was adopted with a clear error of assessment on its part.

               4.

               By the fourth plea, regarding what the Commission considers to be the incorrect calculation of the interest paid under the 50/50 rule in Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, (1) and the consequent failure to refer thereto in the table under Annex III, it is submitted that the Commission misinterpreted and misapplied Article 32(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.

         Furthermore, in respect of the remaining contested parts of the Commission implementing decision, concerning the imposition of one-off corrections in individual instances of cases that were checked, the fifth plea is put forward, which, after the necessary preliminary observations on all the cases, refers separately to each of the corrections imposed, relying on infringement of Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005, indefiniteness, a complete lack of a sufficient and definite statement of reasons, clear and manifold error of assessment on the part of the Commission, infringement of the principles of good administration and proportionality, and the exceeding by the Commission of the limits of its discretion when charging the amounts at issue to the Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).


title: Case C-251/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Gävle Kraftvärme AB v Länsstyrelsen i Gävleborgs län (Environment — Directive 2000/76/EC — Incineration of waste — Classification of an installation for the production of heat and electricity — Concepts of incineration plant and co-incineration plant)

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — Gävle Kraftvärme AB v Länsstyrelsen i Gävleborgs län
   (Case C-251/07) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 2000/76/EC - Incineration of waste - Classification of an installation for the production of heat and electricity - Concepts of incineration plant and co-incineration plant)
   (2008/C 285/13)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Högsta domstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gävle Kraftvärme AB

      Defendant: Länsstyrelsen i Gävleborgs län
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Högsta domstolen — Interpretation of Article 3(4) and (5) of Directive 2000/76/EC of 4 December 2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the incineration of waste (OJ 2000 L 332, p. 91) — Classification of a combined power and heating plant comprising a number of furnaces — Incineration plant or co-incineration plant
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               For the purposes of applying Directive 2000/76/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000 on the incineration of waste, where a co-generation plant comprises a number of boilers, each boiler and its associated equipment is to be regarded as constituting a separate plant.

               2.

               It is on the basis of its main purpose that a plant is to be classified as an ‘incineration plant’ or a ‘co-incineration plant’ within the meaning of Article 3(4) and (5) of Directive 2000/76. It is for the competent authorities to identify that purpose on the basis of an assessment of the facts existing at the time at which that assessment is carried out. In the context of such an assessment, account must be taken, in particular, of the volume of energy generated or material products produced by the plant in question in relation to the quantity of waste incinerated in that plant and the stability and continuity of that production.

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-139/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 17 March 2010 — Prism Investments BV v J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 17 March 2010 — Prism Investments BV v J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV
   (Case C-139/10)
   2010/C 134/43
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Prism Investments BV

      Respondent: J.A. van der Meer, in his capacity as receiver in the liquidation of Arilco Holland BV

      Question referred

   Does Article 45 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) preclude the court with which an appeal is lodged under Article 43 or Article 44 of that regulation from refusing or revoking the declaration of enforceability on a ground, other than one of those specified in Articles 34 and 35 of that regulation, which has been advanced against enforcement of the judgment declared enforceable and which arose after that judgment had been delivered, such as the ground that there has been compliance with that judgment?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case T-220/09: Action brought on 3 June 2009 — ERGO Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle (ERGO)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/60

         Action brought on 3 June 2009 — ERGO Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM — Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle (ERGO)
   (Case T-220/09)
   2009/C 180/110
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ERGO Versicherungsgruppe (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle SAS (Chenôve, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 March 2009 in Case No R 515/2008-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘ERGO’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 5 (registration application No 3 292 638)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Société de Développement et de Recherche Industrielle SAS

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘URGO’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 (Community trade mark No 989 863)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 (1)) on the grounds that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two opposing marks.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)


title: Case T-294/01: Action brought on 3 December 2001 by Lucía Aparicio Chofré against Commission of the European Communities

text:
16.2.2002             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 44/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Applicant for the Com-       The applicant                              —      annul the decision of 29 January 2001 of the Head of
munity trade mark:                                                             Unit ADMIN B 3 fixing her place of recruitment at
                                                                               Brussels and refusing to grant her the daily subsistence
The Community trade          Word mark ‘BASS’ — application                    allowance;
mark concerned:              No 161331, registration sought
                             in respect of goods in Class 25            —      annul the implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint
                             (footwear and clothing)                           of 27 April 2001 against the original contested decision;
Proprietor of the right to   Pash Textilvertrieb und Einzelhan-         —      order the Commission to pay to the applicant the
the trade mark or sign       del GmbH                                          amounts to which she is entitled as a result of having
asserted by way of oppo-                                                       Rome as her place of recruitment, as set out in the
sition in the opposition                                                       grounds, and in particular the daily subsistence allowance,
proceedings:                                                                   with default interest at 7 % per annum, as from the date
                                                                               on which those amounts fell due until payment is made
Trade mark or sign           German mark registered under                      in full;
asserted by way of oppo-     the name ‘PASH’, registered in
sition in the opposition     order to distinguish various               —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
proceedings:                 articles in international classes 18
                             and 25
Decision of the Oppo-        Opposition dismissed                       Pleas in law and main arguments
sition Division:
Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the decision of the           The applicant was seconded to the Commission in Brussels for
Appeal:                      Opposition Division                        three years before being engaged as a member of the auxiliary
                                                                        staff. For that purpose, the applicant’s place of recruitment was
Grounds of claim:            —     Inconsistency between the            set as Rome. The applicant was subsequently engaged as a
                                   form of order sought and             member of the temporary staff for an indeterminate period,
                                   the order made, since the            with Brussels as the place of recruitment. That decision is
                                   opposition was not brought           contested by the applicant.
                                   against the ‘shoes’ men-
                                   tioned in Class 25                   In support of her application, the applicant pleads an error in
                                                                        law as regards the concept of ‘residence’ and a manifest error
                             —     Coexistence of the marks
                                                                        of assessment. According to the applicant, her residence in
                                   ‘BASS’ and ‘PASH’ on the
                                                                        Brussels was provisional during the entire period of her
                                   German market
                                                                        engagement with the Commission in Brussels. In her sub-
                             —     Misapplication       of    Ar-       mission, the facts demonstrate that her habitual residence
                                   ticle 8(1)(b) of Regulation          remained Rome. Moreover, the applicant claims that the
                                   (EC) No 40/94 (likelihood of         Commission illegally withdrew a decision giving rise to
                                   confusion).                          entitlement. Initially, the place of recruitment of the applicant
                                                                        was Rome when she took up her duties as a member of
                                                                        the temporary staff. That decision was withdrawn by the
                                                                        subsequent contested decision not to grant the applicant
                                                                        entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance.
Action brought on 3 December 2001 by Donatella Ineich-
   en against Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-293/01)                                 Action brought on 3 December 2001 by Lucı́a Aparicio
                                                                        Chofré against Commission of the European Communities
                         (2002/C 44/39)
                                                                                (Case T-294/01)
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/40)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 December 2001 by Donatella
Ineichen, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Lucas, lawyer.                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/22                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16.2.2002
European Communities on 3 December 2001 by Lucı́a                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Aparicio Chofré, residing in Valencia (Spain), represented by
Gloria Ballester Cañada, lawyer.
                                                                         —     annul the decision adopted on 19 September 2001 by
                                                                               the Third Board of Appeal in Case No R 826/2000-3;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     order the defendant to proceed with the registration
                                                                               proceedings in respect of Community trade mark appli-
—     annul the decision of the selection board in general                     cation No 607895, in particular to re-open the opposition
      competition COM/B/01 in the event that it does not mark                  proceedings pending under opposition No B 190746
      the tests sat by the applicant on 6 July 2001.                           and, following the conclusion of those opposition pro-
                                                                               ceedings, in so far as Community trade mark application
                                                                               No 607895 is not found to be excluded from registration
                                                                               in accordance with the first sentence of Article 43(5) of
                                                                               the Community trade mark regulation (1), order the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                defendant to register the trade mark applied for pursuant
                                                                               to Article 45 of that regulation;
The applicant claims that the contested decision, which
excludes her from the competition on the ground that                     —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
she does not meet the conditions relating to professional
experience required under Point III.B of the competition notice,
not only adversely affects her but, moreover, is unlawful and
contrary to the wording of the competition notice (1), according
to which candidates must have acquired, by the deadline for              Pleas in law and main arguments
the submission of applications, at least 4 years’ professional
experience. The applicant argues that, in accordance with the
criteria laid down in the notice for the calculation of the period       The trade mark applied         the verbal mark ‘OLDENBURGER’
of professional experience, she has shown that she has acquired          for:                           — Application No 607895
7 years and 8 months of experience, so that the board should
have allowed her to take part in the competition.                        Goods or services:             goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32
                                                                                (including milk and dairy prod-
                                                                                ucts)
(1) Published in OJ 2001 C 24A.
                                                                         Decision         contested     refusal of registration by the
                                                                         before the Board of            examiner
                                                                         Appeal:
                                                                         Decision of the Board of       rejection of the appeal
                                                                         Appeal:
                                                                         Grounds of claim:              —     error of law in the appli-
                                                                                cation of Article 7(1)(c) and
Action brought on 3 December 2001 by Nordmilch eG                                                             Article 7(2) of Regulation
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                                          (EC) No 40/94;
               Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                                —     misinterpretation of Article
                                                                                12(b) of Regulation (EC)
                         (Case T-295/01)                                                                      No 40/94;
                                                                                —     error of law by the defendant
                          (2002/C 44/41)                                                                      in failing to call upon the
                                                                                applicant to give a dis-
                                                                                claimer.
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                             Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
3 December 2001 by Nordmilch eG, of Zeven (Germany),
represented by C. Spintig, lawyer.


title: Case C-179/99 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 1999 by EUROFER ASBL against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-136/94 EUROFER ASBL v Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 299/2                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         16.10.1999
— The Court infringed the rights of the defence in ruling itself        2. Having regard in full to the forms of order sought at first
     on the consequences to be attached to the role played by                instance, annul Article 2 of the respondent’s Decision
     DG III during the period in question, as revealed during                C(94)321 of 16 February 1994 and that part of Article 3
     the judicial proceedings, rather than annulling the decision            of that decision which concerns the appellant;
     in order to enable the Commission to rule anew by taking
     into account those factors and the arguments which the             3. Order the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.
     undertakings might derive from them.
— Infringement by the Court of Article 65 of the ECSC                   Pleas in law and main arguments
     Treaty: in interpreting Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty, and
     more particularly the notion of normal competition,                — Infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty through
     autonomously and in failing to take account of that                     a legally incorrect interpretation of what constitutes
     provision’s place in the Treaty and of the fact that it                 ‘decisions by associations of undertakings’. The relevance
     pursues other objectives, the Court acted contrary not only             of decisions taken by associations from the point of view
     to the case-law of the Court of Justice, in particular the              of competition law lies in the fact that even those members
     judgment in Case 13/60 Geitling v High Authority (1), but               which did not vote in favour are also bound. If, as
     also to its own jurisprudence in Case T-239/94 EISA v                   presumed in the present case, there is an agreement
     Commission (2). It follows from the Court’s own analysis                between undertakings, it is superfluous also to seek a
     that this approach, which consisted in at least tacitly                 decision by an association. Activities within an association
     encouraging certain conduct which was capable of having                 such as the organisation of information exchange are
     obvious restrictive effects on competition on condition                 unilateral actions on the part of an institution, which
     that such conduct tended in the direction of the general                cannot enter into cartel agreements with itself. The associ-
     policy followed by the Commission, was maintained                       ation activities here in issue are auxiliary services which
     during the years concerned by the decision.                             the association provides for its members. That situation
                                                                             cannot be classified as a cartel. The prohibition in Article
                                                                             65(1) of the ECSC Treaty is therefore not applicable.
(*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
(1) (1962) ECR 83.                                                      — Infringement of Article 15, first paragraph, of the ECSC
(2) (1997) ECR II-1839.
                                                                             Treaty by reason of grounds which are wrong in law,
                                                                             intrinsically contradictory and ignore the limit of the
                                                                             Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae, in regard to the finding
                                                                             in Article 2 of Decision C(94)321 that Eurofer organised
                                                                             an exchange of confidential information ‘in connection with’
                                                                             the infringements committed by its members.
                                                                        — Infringement of Article 65(1) of the ECSC Treaty and
                                                                             failure by the Court to respect the limits of its jurisdiction
Appeal brought on 17 May 1999 by EUROFER ASBL
                                                                             ratione materiae by reason of its legally erroneous interpret-
against the judgment delivered on 11 March 1999 by the
                                                                             ation of what constitutes ‘... tending ...’ in the application of
Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                             that term to allegedly anti-competitive consequences of
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case
                                                                             the Eurofer information exchange.
T-136/94 EUROFER ASBL v Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                        — Infringement of Articles 15, first paragraph, and 65(1) of
                                                                             the ECSC Treaty through a legally erroneous interpretation
                      (Case C-179/99 P) (*)                                  and application of the term ‘prevent, restrict or distort ...
                                                                             competition’ and through contradictory reasoning in the
                                                                             application of that term to the information exchange
                         (1999/C 299/02)                                     organised by Eurofer:
An appeal has been brought before the Court of Justice of the                The knowledge by the participants in the Eurofer infor-
European Communities on 17 May 1999 by EUROFER ASBL,                         mation exchange that a participant in the product group
represented by Norbert Koch, of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue,                  ‘beams’ had increased its turnover could only strengthen
480 Avenue Louise, B-1050 Brussels, with an address for                      their general competitive efforts, but could not provoke a
service at the offices of EUROFER ASBL, 241 Route d’Arlon,                   targeted counter reaction. Participants did not know which
L-1150 Luxembourg, against the judgment delivered on                         specific product or which customer was responsible for
11 March 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European                 the increase in volume. In addition, the information
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in                        referred to the performance (supply) of transactions which
Case T-136/94 EUROFER ASBL v Commission of the European                      had been concluded at least three and a half months,
Communities.                                                                 mostly six, and in some cases seven months previously,
                                                                             and thus too late to counter the advance acquired by one
                                                                             of the participants.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
1. Set aside in its entirety the judgment delivered by the Court        (*) See case C-199/99 P, OJ C 204, 17.7.1999, p. 32.
     of First Instance on 11 March 1999 in Case T-136/94
     EUROFER ASBL v COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN
     COMMUNITIES;


title: Case T-2/07: Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/31

         Action brought on 2 February 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-2/07)
   (2007/C 56/61)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Decision C(2006) 5102 of 20 October 2006, in that it reduces the assistance from the Cohesion Fund to the group of projects No 2001 ES 16 C PE 050 (Clearance of the hydrographical basin of the Júcar 2001-Group2)

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present action is directed at Commission Decision C(2006) 5103 of 20 October 2006, which reduced the assistance from the Cohesion Fund to the group of projects No 2001 ES 16 C PE 050, performed in Spain and designated as ‘Clearance of the hydrographical basin of the Júcar 2001-Group 2’.
   It concerns a comprehensive group of three different projects which received assistance of EUR 11 266 701, which was reduced by virtue of the impugned decision by EUR 1 900 281.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges incorrect and incoherent interpretation of Directive 92/17/EEC (1), in so far as it relates to the criterion of experience (Article 30(1) and (2)) and to the use of the system of average prices (Article 30(1)).
   Regarding the inclusion of the ‘criterion of experience’ as one of the criteria for the contract award, while that criterion is not expressly provided for in the applicable rules, it is submitted that Community case-law allows for that possibility, and that the use of that criterion can in no way constitute a grave and manifest infringement of the Community rules, or, in any event, can only amount to an excusable error of law on account of lack of clarity of the applicable rule.
   On the other hand, the applicant disputes that the use of the system of average prices, used during the analysis of the most economically advantageous tender in the projects awarded, infringes the principle of equal treatment, by discriminating in favour of excessively low tenders compared with other more expensive tenders.
   In the alternative, the applicant also alleges breach of Article H (2) of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1164/94, (2) on the ground of infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty; and, in respect of Contract No 2000/GV/2005, breach of the principle of proportionality, as well as breach of Article 19 of the Directive No 93/37, cited above.

      (1)  Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 54).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ L 130, 25.5.1994, p. 1).


title: Case F-31/14: Action brought on 29 March 2014 — ZZ and Others v Parliament

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/45

         Action brought on 29 March 2014 — ZZ and Others v Parliament
   (Case F-31/14)
   2014/C 184/75
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: A. Salerno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the elections for the Staff Committee of the European Parliament which took place in autumn 2013, the results of which were published on 28 November 2013.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the results of the elections for the Staff Committee of the European Parliament which took place in autumn 2013, the results of which were officially published on 28 November 2013;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the costs.


Notice of open competition CJ/LA/4


title: Case T-35/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 April 2017 — Alkarim for Trade and Industry v Council
   (Case T-35/15) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2017/C 161/30)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC (Tal Kurdi, Syria) (represented by: J.-P. Buyle and L. Cloquet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially G. Étienne and S. Kyriakopoulou, and subsequently S. Kyriakopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application pursuant to Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 36), and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 301, p. 7), in so far as the name of the applicant has been included in the list of the persons and bodies to which the restrictive measures apply.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2014/730/CFSP of 20 October 2014 implementing Decision 2013/255/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1105/2014 of 20 October 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as they concern Alkarim for Trade and Industry LLC;

               2.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Alkarim for Trade and Industry.

      (1)  OJ C 89 of 16.3.2015.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 February 1997 in Case T-141/96: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)

text:
C 265/14                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   18.9.1999
1. There is no need to give a decision on the application.                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2. The applicants and the Commission are to bear their own costs.                                 of 30 April 1999
3. The interveners are to bear their own costs.                           in Case T-311/97, Pescados Congelados Jogamar, SL v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996.                                                (Action for declaration of failure to act — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (1999/C 265/28)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          In Case T-311/97, Pescados Congeloados Jogamar, SL, estab-
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               lished in Las Palmas, Spain, represented by Manual de Cristóbal
                                                                          López, of the Madrid Bar with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Beaumanoir, 48 Rue de Bragance,
                       of 20 February 1997                                against the Commission of the European Communities (acting
                                                                          by Thomas van Rijn and Juan Guerra Fernández as Agents), an
in Case T-141/96: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG                      application for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully
and Others v Commission of the European Communi-                          failed to intervene in pursuance of its powers in regard to
                                ties (1)                                  fishing, and particularly its powers in the context of the
                                                                          cooperation agreement entered into by the European Com-
                                                                          munity and the Kingdom of Morocco in that field, when the
                    (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)
                                                                          Moroccan authorities arrested the ship Albor Uno, the Court
                                                                          (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President and
                          (1999/C 265/27)                                 R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
                                                                          made an order on 30 April 1999 the operative part of which
                                                                          states as follows:
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
In Case T-141/96: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG,                     2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
established at Tettnang (Germany), Hochland Reich, Summer
& Co. KG, established at Heimenkirch (Germany) Milchwerk
Crailsheim eG, established at Crailsheim (Germany), Milchwerk             (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
Geislingen eG, established at Geislingen/Steige (Germany),
Wendelstein Käsewerk Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH & Co. KG,
established at Bad Aibling (Germany) and Zentral-Molkerei
Aurich GmbH, established at Aurich (Germany). represented
by Jürgen Salzwedel and Michael Loschelder, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11
Rue Goethe, against Commission of the European Communi-                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ties (Agents: J.L. Buhigues and U. Wölker) — application for
the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96                                            of 29 April 1999
of 12 June 1996 on the registration of geographical indications
and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in               in case T-120/98: Alce Srl v Commission of the European
Article 17 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (OJ 1996                                         Communities (1)
L 148, p. 1) in so far as concerns the registration of feta as a
protected designation of origin — the Court of Firs Instance                                       (Inadmissibility)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Garcia-Valdecasas, President,
J. Azizi and M Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order                                   (1999/C 265/29)
on 20 February 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
1. Jurisdiction is declined in Case T-141/96 Bergpracht Milchwerk                             (Language of the case: Italian)
     GmbH & Co. KG and Others v Commission of the European
     Communities in order to enable the Court of Justice to rule on       In Case T-120/98: Alce Srl, established in Novara, Italy,
     the application for annulment;                                       represented by Celestino Corica, of the Novara Bar, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Franco
2. The costs are reserved.                                                Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agent: Paolo Stancanelli) — application for
                                                                          annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1160/98 of
(1) OJ C 336 of 9.11.1996.                                                2 June 1998 concerning the classification of certain goods
                                                                          inthe Combined Nomenclature (OJ 1998 L 160, p. 20) —
                                                                          the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of:
                                                                          M. Jagaer, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,


title: Case T-23/01: Action brought on 26 January 2001 by Eugene Emile Marie Kimman against Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.3.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 95/21
Action brought on 26 January 2001 by Eugene Emile                        Action brought on 30 January 2001 by Claire Staelen
Marie Kimman against Commission of the European                          against European Parliament and Council of the European
                          Communities                                                                  Union
                         (Case T-23/01)
                                                                                (Case T-24/01)
                         (2001/C 95/41)
                                                                                (2001/C 95/42)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                   (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 26 January 2001 by Eugene Emile
Marie Kimman, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented
by Nicolas Lhoëst, avocat, with an address for service in                An action against the European Parliament and the Council of
Luxembourg.                                                              the European Union was brought before the Court of First
                                                                         Instance of the European Communities on 30 January 2001
                                                                         by Claire Staelen, residing in Bridel (Luxembourg), represented
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              by Joëlle Choucroun, avocat, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg.
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 25 May 2000
      in so far as it reduces the applicant’s annual leave for
      2000 by one day;                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              —     annul the entire marking procedure in respect of the
                                                                               written tests for the competition or annul the decision of
                                                                               the selection board for competition Eur/151/98 awarding
                                                                               the applicant, for the written test, a mark which did not
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                allow her to be included in the reserve list;
The applicant, who at the material time was serving with the             —     in the alternative, order the Parliament and the Council
Commission Delegation in Latvia, contests the decision of the                  to pay to the applicant EUR 12 000 in respect of the
appointing authority to reduce by one day her annual leave                     non-material damage caused;
allowance for 2000. That decision was purportedly based on
the fact that the delegation in question was closed for 7 days
instead of the 6 days provided for in the Commission’s decision          —     order the defendants to pay the costs.
of 17 July 1997.
In support of her claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Unlawfulness of the Commission’s decision of 17 July
      1997 restricting to 6 days per year the maximum number
      of days on which the offices of the Delegation of the
      External Services may be closed, inasmuch as it fails to           The applicant in the present case was admitted to Competition
      observe the principle of equality as between officials.            EUR/151/98 designed to draw up a list of eligible persons
                                                                         to be held in reserve for recruitment as French-language
                                                                         administrators.
—     Infringement of the special Commission Decision of
      21 December 1998 laying down the number of official
      holidays for 1999.
                                                                         She claims in the respect to have learnt that the selection board
                                                                         had changed the minimum number of points required to pass
—     Infringement of Article 60 of the Staff Regulations.               the first two written, thus increasing the number of candidates
                                                                         who initially passed those two tests without that decision
                                                                         being justified by a small number of candidates having
                                                                         obtained the requisite number of points. That irregularity
                                                                         significantly distorted the final result of the competition.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 5 June 1997 in Case C-398/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio Epikrateias): Syndesmos ton en Elladi Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon Grafeion v. Ypourgos Ergasias (Freedom to provide services)

text:
No C 252/2            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      16 . 8 . 97
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                character and specific to, and essential for, those
court between Sparekassernes Datacenter ( SDC ) and                      services .
Skatteministeriet — on the interpretation of points 3 , 4
and 5 of Article 13 B ( d) of the Sixth Council Directive
( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of               6 . The mere fact that a service is invoiced by a third
the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes                 party does not prevent the transaction to which it
— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis                        relates from being exempt under points 3 and 5 of
of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ) — the                Article 13 B (d) of the Sixth Directive.
Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho
de Almeida, President of the Chamber, L. Sevón
( Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet,            n OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-General; H.
von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
given a judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
1 . Points 3 and 5 of Article 13 B (d) of the Sixth Council                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977, on the
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States                                         ( Sixth Chamber)
     relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                                      of 5 June 1997
     added tax: uniform basis of assessment, are to be
     interpreted as meaning that the exemption is not               in Case C-398/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
     subject to the condition that the transactions be              the Symvoulio Epikrateias ): Syndesmos ton en Elladi
     effected by a certain type of institution, by a certain        Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon Grafeion v. Ypourgos
     type of legal person or wholly or partly by certain                                         Ergasias ( ! )
     electronic means or manually.
                                                                                (Freedom to provide services)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/03 )
2 . The exemption provided for points 3 and 5 of
     Article 13 B (d) of the Sixth Directive is not subject to
     the condition that the service be provided by an                                (Language of the case: Greek)
     institution which has a legal relationship with the end
     customer. The fact that a transaction covered by those
  , provisions is effected by a third party but appears to             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
     the end customer to be a service provided by the bank                     published in the European Court Reports)
     does not preclude exemption for the transaction.
                                                                    In Case C-398/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 3 . Point 3 of Article 13 B (d) of the Sixth Directive is to       of the EC Treaty from the Symvoulio Epikrateias ( Council
     be interpreted as meaning that transactions concerning         of State ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
     transfers and payments and transactions in shares,             pending before that court between Syndesmos ton en
     interests in companies or associations, debentures and         Elladi Touristikon kai Taxidiotikon Grafeion and Yporgos
     other securities include transactions carried out by a         Ergasias, supported by 1 . Somateio Diplomatouchon
     data-handling centre if those transactions are distinct        Xenagon, 2 . Panellinia Omospondia Xenagon — on the
     in character and are specific to, and essential for, the       interpretation of Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty —
     exempt transactions.                                           the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: G. F. Mancini,
                                                                    President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn
                                                                     ( Rapporteur), FI. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges;
                                                                     C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
 4 . Services consisting in making financial information             Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
     available to banks and other users are not covered by           judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
     points 3 and 5 of Article 13 B (d) of the Sixth
     Directive .
                                                                     1 . The rules of a Member State which, by prescribing a
                                                                          mandatory legal form of employment relationship
                                                                          between the parties, prevent tourist and travel
 5 . The mere fact that transactions concerning the                       agencies, wherever they are established, from
     management of deposits, purchase contracts and loans                 concluding, in connection with the operation of tourist
     are carried out by a data-handling centre does not                   programmes organized by them in that Member State,
     prevent them from constituting services covered by                   a contract for the provision of services with a tourist
     points 13 and 15 of Annex F to the Sixth Directive. It               guide from another Member State who is licensed to
      is for the national court to determine whether, before              pursue his profession in the first State constitute a
      1 January 1991 , those transactions were separate in                barrier for the purposes of Article 59 of the EC Treaty.
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 8 . 97          I EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 252/3
2 . Such rules cannot be justified by reasons relating to             enjoying exemption under those provisions, is not
     the general interest in maintaining industrial peace as          enforceable against third parties unless it is impervious.
     a means of bringing a collective labour dispute to an
     end and thereby preventing any adverse effects on an             (') OJNoC 108 , 13 . 4 . 1996 .
     economic sector, and consequently on the economy of
     the State.
H OJ No C 64 , 2 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 June 1997
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 in Joined Cases C-64/96 and C-65/96 (references for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm):
                        (Sixth Chamber)                               Land Nordrhein-Westfalen              v. Kari Uecker   and Vera
                         of 5 June 1997                                              Jacquet v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (')
in Case C-41/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from               (Freedom of movement for workers — Right of a spouse
the Landgericht Hamburg): VAG-Handlerbeirat eV v.                     of a Community national who has the nationality of a
                         SYD-Consult C )                              non-member country to be employed — Situation purely
                                                                                internal to a Member State)
(Article 85 (3) of the EC Treaty — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/05 )
No 123/85 — Selective distribution system —
 'Imperviousness ' of the system as a precondition for its
              enforceability against third parties)                                       (Language of the case: German)
                          ( 97/C 252/04 )
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                 (Language of the case: German)                                     published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Joined Cases C-64/96 and C-65/96 : references to the
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the
           published in the European Court Reports)                    Landesarbeitsgericht ( Higher Labour Court) Hamm,
                                                                       Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                       pending before that court between Land Nordrhein
                                                                       Westfalen and Kari Uecker and between Vera Jacquet and
 In Case C-41 /96 : reference to the Court under Article 177           Land Nordrhein-Westfalen — on the interpretation of
 of the EC Treaty from the Landgericht ( Regional Court)               Article 48 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty and Articles 7 ( 1 ) and 11
 Hamburg ( Germany), for a preliminary ruling in the                   of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of the Council of
 proceedings pending before that court between VAG                     15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
 Handlerbeirat      eV    and    SYD-Consult      —     on   the       within the Community ( OJ, English Special Edition 1968
 interpretation of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty and                ( II ), p. 475 ) — the Court ( Third Chamber), composed of:
 Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December                  J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur), President of the
  1984 on the application of Article 85 ( 3 ) of the EEC                Chamber, C. Gulmann and J.-R Puissochet, Judges; N.
 Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution             Fennelly, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a
 and servicing agreements ( OJ No L 15 , 18 . 1 . 1985 , p. 16 )        judgment on 5 June 1997, the operative part of which is
 — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F.                       as follows :
 Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, G.
 Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur),
 Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl,                     A national of a non-member country married to a worker
  Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               having the nationality of a Member State cannot rely on
  judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it has ruled:                       the right conferred by Article 11 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on
                                                                        freedom of movement for workers within the Community
  Neither Article 85 (3) of the EC Treaty nor Commission                when that worker has never exercised the right to freedom
  Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December 1984 on                      of movement within the Community.
  the application of Article 85 (3) of the EEC Treaty to
  certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and                   (M OJNoC 133,4 . 5 . 1996 .
  servicing agreements is to be interpreted as precluding the
  application of national case-law on unfair competition
  under which a selective distribution system, even if


title: Case C-294/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Elsacom NV (Eighth VAT Directive — Arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country — Time-limit within which refund applications are to be submitted — Time bar)

text:
               18.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 250/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 June 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Elsacom NV
   (Case C-294/11) (1)

   (Eighth VAT Directive - Arrangements for the refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country - Time-limit within which refund applications are to be submitted - Time bar)
   2012/C 250/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

      Defendant: Elsacom NV

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di Cassazione — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) — Period of six months from the end of the calendar year in which value added tax became chargeable within which to submit an application for refund of that tax — The legal significance of the period laid down by the directive

      Operative part of the judgment

   The six-month time limit laid down in the last sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country — for submitting an application for a value added tax refund is a mandatory time limit.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.