title: Case T-595/11 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by A against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 September 2011 in Case F-12/09, A v Commission

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/25

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2011 by A against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 September 2011 in Case F-12/09, A v Commission
   (Case T-595/11 P)
   2012/C 49/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: A (Port-Vendres, France) (represented by B. Cambier, A. Paternostre and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 14 September 2011 in Case F-12/09;

               —

               Consequently, uphold the claims of the appellant at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul the decisions by which the European Commission refuses to pay the appellant the compensation due under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and order the European Commission to pay that compensation to the appellant immediately, together with additional compensation under common law representing the difference between the amount of the actual loss suffered and the part of that loss for which compensation is paid under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations,

                           —

                           order the Commission to pay the appellant late-payment interest calculated from the month of December 2004, the date at which the work-related origin of the sickness, the amount of the loss sufferance and the stabilisation of his state of health ought to have been acknowledged,

                           —

                           order the European Commission to pay the appellant any sum which appears to the General Court to be adequate to compensate the appellant for the non-pecuniary harm suffered by him as a result of the numerous errors and irregularities committed by the services of the European Commission in the investigation of the medical procedures concerning him,

                           —

                           order the defendant to pay the costs at both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to action within a reasonable time, of the principle of the duty of care, of the principle of legitimate expectations and distortion of the file.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to full compensation for the loss suffered.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging, firstly, infringement of Articles 73 and 90 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the principles of sound administration, procedural economy, non-retroactivity, hierarchy of norms and the concept of consolidation and, secondly, distortion of the facts and of the appellant’s arguments.


title: Case C-645/15: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde v Freistaat Bayern (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Environment — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Directive 2011/92/EU — Project subject to assessment — Annex I, point 7 — European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries (AGR) — Widening of a road with four lanes over a length of less than 10 km)

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 24 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde v Freistaat Bayern
   (Case C-645/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 2011/92/EU - Project subject to assessment - Annex I, point 7 - European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries (AGR) - Widening of a road with four lanes over a length of less than 10 km))
   (2017/C 030/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bund Naturschutz in Bayern e.V., Harald Wilde

      Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

      Joined party: Stadt Nürnberg

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Point 7(c) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment cannot be interpreted to the effect that it covers a road development project which, whilst it concerns, as in the case before the referring court, a stretch of road that is under 10 km in length, consists in the widening or development of an existing road with four or more lanes.

               2.

               Point 7(b) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as meaning that ‘express roads’ for the purposes of that provision are roads whose technical characteristics are those set out in the definition in point II.3 of Annex II to the European Agreement on Main International Traffic Arteries (AGR), signed in Geneva on 15 November 1975, even if those roads do not form part of the network of main international traffic arteries or are located in urban areas.

               3.

               The concept of ‘construction’ for the purposes of point 7(b) of Annex I to Directive 2011/92 must be interpreted as referring to the carrying-out of works not previously existing or to the physical alteration of existing installations. In order to determine whether such an alteration may be regarded as equivalent, because of its scale and the manner in which it is carried out, to such construction, the referring court must take account of all the characteristics of the work concerned and not only of its length or of the fact that its initial route is retained.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case F-52/15: Action brought on 7 April 2015 — ZZ. v Commission

text:
               8.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/38

         Action brought on 7 April 2015 — ZZ. v Commission
   (Case F-52/15)
   (2015/C 190/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to reject the applicant’s application for an extension of his service and a claim for damages with interest in respect of the material harm allegedly suffered and the symbolic sum of EUR 1 as compensation for the non-pecuniary harm alleged.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision adopted by the Appointing Authority on 25 June 2014 rejecting the applicant’s application for an extension of his service and, accordingly, confirming his automatic retirement on 31 October 2014;

               —

               Annul, in so far as necessary, the decision rejecting his claim, dated 10 December 2014 and served on the applicant on 29 December 2014;

               —

               Pay compensation for the material harm suffered by the applicant as a result of the contested decisions;

               —

               Award the applicant the symbolic sum of EUR 1 as compensation for his non-pecuniary harm;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay all the costs.


title: Case T-675/15: Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/65

         Action brought on 20 November 2015 — Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission
   (Case T-675/15)
   (2016/C 038/88)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd (Taiyuan, China) (represented by: F. Carlin, Barrister, and N. Niejahr, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1429 of 26 August 2015 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat products originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2015 L 224, p. 10), to the extent that it imposes anti-dumping duties on exports by the applicant and collects provisional duties imposed on such exports; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay its own costs and the costs of the applicant in connection with these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed the second sub-paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1225/2009 (1) (the ‘Basic Regulation’) by identifying and selecting the United States of America (‘US’) as the appropriate analogue country in this case. This selection was based on an erroneous interpretation and application of the second sub-paragraph of Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation as well as on manifest errors of appraisal of the facts. Alternatively, the Commission manifestly misapplied Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic Regulation by failing to make certain required adjustments to normal value despite selecting the US as the analogue country.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission infringed Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation by failing to make the required adjustment for internal transport costs of a US exporting producer pursuant to section (k) of this provision.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that Commission infringed Articles 3(2), 3(6) and 3(7) of the Basic Regulation. The Commission’s analysis of certain injury factors and of causation is vitiated by manifest errors of appraisal of the facts and/or is not in line with the Commission’s duty to examine data with care and impartiality.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51).


title: Case T-264/04: Action brought on 30 June 2004 by World Wide Fund for Nature European Policy Programme against the Council of the European Union

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/30

         Action brought on 30 June 2004 by World Wide Fund for Nature European Policy Programme against the Council of the European Union
   (Case T-264/04)
   (2004/C 262/58)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 2004 by World Wide Fund for Nature European Policy Programme, Brussels, Belguim, represented by Ms R. Haynes, Barrister.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the contested decision of the Council, of 30 April 2004, maintaining the Council's refusal to disclose the document it had identified as relevant to the applicant's request.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   By a letter dated 23 February 2004 the applicant applied to the Council in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation 1049/2001 (1), Official Journal L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43-48, and sought information with respect to an item entitled ‘WTO-Sustainability and Trade after Cancun’ on the agenda of the ‘Article 133 EC’ Committee for a meeting of its Deputy Members on 19 December 2003. By letter of 17 March 2004 the Council indicated that, in relation to the applicant's application, it had identified a note of the Commission covering a wide range of issues concerning the follow-up to the Cancun conference which, however, it declined to disclose on the basis that disclosure would undermine the European Union's commercial interests and would be prejudicial to economic relationships with third countries. It further informed the applicant that no minutes of meetings of the Deputy Members of the Committee were drawn up.
   The applicant made a confirmatory application in accordance with Article 7 paragraph 2 of Regulation 1049/2001 on 5 April 2004. By the contested decision the Council maintained its refusal on the grounds it had already indicated.
   In support of its application to annul the contested decision the applicant contends that the Council has erred in its assessment of the sensitivity of the relevant information, has failed to provide adequate reasons for its refusal and has failed to apply properly the principle of proportionality in assessing the possibility of partial disclosure.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.


title: Action brought on 20 August 1998 by Hewlett Packard France against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-133/98)

text:
C 358/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.11.98
Action brought on 19 June 1998 by A. Alferink and                  Action brought on 20 August 1998 by Hewlett Packard
Others against the Commission of the European                      France against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                                       Communities
                        (Case T-94/98)                                                    (Case T-133/98)
                         (98/C 358/31)                                                     (98/C 358/32)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Instance of the European Communities on 20 August
Instance of the European Communities on 19 June 1998               1998 by Hewlett Packard France, the registered office of
by A. Alferink and others, all residing in the Netherlands,        which is at Courcouronnes (France), represented by
represented by H. J. Bronkhorst, of the Hague Bar, and             Fabrice Goguel and Anne Trager, of the Paris Bar, with an
E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Brussels Bar, with an              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of T.            Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue.
Loesch, 11 rue Goethe.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul Commission Decision 98/406/EC published on
                                                                        pages 45 and 46 of the Official Journal of the
Ð order the Commission to pay the sums specified in the                 European Communities of 23 June 1998, requiring
     application by way of compensation for the damage                  the revocation of binding Tariff Information No
     suffered by the applicants as a result of the defective            FR 12030199700151, which had correctly classified
     enactment of Article 3(a) of Commission Regulation                 HP JetDirect EX Plus (and Ex Plus 3) machines under
     (EEC) No 1546/88 (1), together with interest thereon               heading 8471.80.10;
     at the rate of 8 % per annum from 23 February 1998
     until the date of full settlement;
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicant, a company incorporated under French law
                                                                   which imports into France and manufactures in that
                                                                   country hardware and software for use in the operation of
The applicants, all of whom are SLOM farmers who have              local area networks' (LANs), contests the revocation of
made use of business assets leased from third parties,             Binding Tariff Information No FR 12030199700151
complain that the Commission has acted unlawfully by               issued by the French customs authorities, which classified
enacting defective legislation. They consider that the             HP JetDirect EX Plus/Ex Plus 3 machines under heading
interpretation applied to the abovementioned provision Ð           8471.80.10 in accordance with the combined Community
according to which, before a definitive reference quantity         nomenclature. The machines in question consist of an
can be allocated, milk production must be resumed by the           electronic card of the Jet Direct type which is inserted in a
original SLOM undertaking or through the same                      unit linked to one or more printers, enabling several
economic and organisational unit as originally existed at          computers within a local area network to have access to
the time when the SLOM undertaking was entered into Ð              and control of that printer or those printers. As a result of
is inconsistent with the wording of the article in question,       the contested revocation decision, the French Directorate-
with Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 (2) and with              General of Customs has had to classify the machine in
the rules implementing it. The Commission has not clearly          question under heading 8517.50.
formulated the restriction which it sought to introduce
and has thus breached the principle of due diligence.
                                                                   In support of its claims, the applicant maintains that the
                                                                   defendant has incorrectly assessed the general rules for the
(1) OJ L 139, 4.6.1988, p. 12.                                     interpretation of the combined nomenclature, laid down in
(2) OJ L 131, 26.5.1977, p. 1.                                     Section 1.A of Part I of Annex I to Council Regulation
                                                                   (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and
                                                                   statistical nomenclature and on the common customs
                                                                   tariff, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2509/97.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.11.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 358/17
In particular, it emphasizes that the attempt to ascribe to         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
local area networks a function which is peculiar to
telecommunications is based on an excessively broad
interpretation of the concept of telecommunications. In its         The applicant contests the revocation of certain binding
view, the chief characteristic of telecommunications                tariff information concerning various machines having the
equipment is that it enables data to be transmitted over            functions of commutators and intended for use in local
unlimited distances; consequently, it is radically different        area networks.
from that used in local area networks. Moreover, that
difference in terms of distance is directly linked to a             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
functional difference. Transmissions within a local area            Case T-133/98 Hewlett Packard France v. Commission.
network are extremely rapid; such rapidity is technically
possible over short distances only. With long-distance
telecommunications, by contrast, the maximum speed of
transmission is very much slower.
The applicant further claims that the equipment in                  Action brought on 7 September 1998 by the
question simultaneously fulfils the three conditions which,         Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di Stato against
according to Note 5(B) of Chapter 84, must be met in                       the Commission of the European Communities
order for a unit to be regarded as forming part of a
complete system, and that it thus falls, in accordance with                               (Case T-139/98)
Note 5(C), within the scope of heading No 84.71: it                                        (98/C 358/34)
constitutes equipment of the type used exclusively in
automatic data processing systems, is connectable to the
central processing unit through the local area network or                          (Language of the case: Italian)
networks and is also able to accept data in a form which
can be used by the system.                                          An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 7 September
                                                                    1998 by the Amministrazione Autonoma dei Monopoli di
                                                                    Stato (Autonomous Administration of State Monopolies),
                                                                    represented by Pier Giorgio Ferri and Danilo Del Gaizo,
                                                                    of the Avvocatura Generale dello Stato, with an address
Action brought on 20 August 1998 by Hewlett Packard
                                                                    for service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue
Europe BV against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Marie-Adelaïde.
                         Communities
                       (Case T-134/98)
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (98/C 358/33)
                                                                    Ð annul the contested decision, pursuant to the form of
               (Language of the case: French)                           order sought under Heading B (point 8 et seq.);
An action against the Commission of the European                    Ð in the alternative, annul that part of the decision
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       challenged in the remaining forms of order, and
Instance of the European Communities on 20 August                       accordingly reduce the scale of the fine imposed;
1998 by Hewlett Packard Europe BV, the registered office
of which is at Amstelveen (Netherlands), represented by
Fabrice Goguel and Anne Trager, of the Paris Bar, with an           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-rue.                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         The applicant in the present case (the AAMS') is a body
                                                                    forming part of the Amministrazione Finanziaria dello
Ð annul Commission Decision 98/406/EC of 16 June                    Stato Italiano (Financial Administration of the Italian
    1998, published on pages 45 and 46 of the Official              State), which, in addition to performing various
    Journal of the European Communities of 23 June                  administrative functions, is also involved in the production
    1998, in so far as it requires the revocation of Binding        and wholesale distribution of processed tobacco products.
    Tariff Information Nos FR 12030199701394,                       Through the contested decision (1), the defendant cast
    12030199702134 and 12030199702135, which had                    doubt on the compatibility with Article 86 of the EC
    correctly classified the machines in issue under heading        Treaty of certain conduct by the applicant organisation in
    8471.80.10;                                                     relation to a number of clauses in the standard-form
                                                                    contract for the distribution of cigarettes of other
                                                                    manufacturing undertakings and in relation to certain
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.                        unilateral steps taken in regard to imported cigarettes and


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2004 in Case T-313/02: David Meca-Medina, Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Freedom to provide services — Anti-doping legislation adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) — Purely sporting legislation)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/39

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 September 2004
   in Case T-313/02: David Meca-Medina, Igor Majcen v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Competition - Freedom to provide services - Anti-doping legislation adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) - Purely sporting legislation)
   (2004/C 300/76)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-313/02: David Meca-Medina, residing at Barcelona (Spain), Igor Majcen, residing at Ljubljana (Slovenia), represented by J.-L. Dupont, lawyer, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: O. Beynet and A. Bouquet, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Republic of Finland (Agent: T. Pynnä, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for the annulment of the Commission's decision of 1 August 2002 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicants against the International Olympic Committee (IOC) seeking a declaration that certain rules adopted by the latter and implemented by the Fédération internationale de natation (FINA) and certain practices relating to doping control are incompatible with the Community competition rules and the freedom to provide services (Case COMP/38158 – Meca-Medina and Majcen/IOC) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the Commission's costs;

               3.

               Orders that the Republic of Finland shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case T-134/10: Action brought on 19 March 2010 — FESI v Conseil

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/36

         Action brought on 19 March 2010 — FESI v Conseil
   (Case T-134/10)
   2010/C 148/62
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fédération européenne de l’industrie du sport (FESI) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Vermulst and Y. Van Gerven, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1) in its entirety or alternatively as far as the applicant and its members, particularly its four sampled members are concerned (Adidas AG, Nike European Operations BV, Puma AG and Timberland Europe BV);

               —

               order the Council to disclose the production data for each sampled Union producer which was the basis of sample selection in the review investigation as well as the employment data for each sampled Union producer;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its claims, the applicant puts forward seven pleas in law.
   First, it submits that by not requiring the complainant European Union producers to complete sampling forms, the Council erred in the application of Article 17(1) of the basic regulation (2), committed a manifest error of appraisal and violated the rights of defence and the principle of non-discrimination. In particular, the applicant claims that the European Union institutions did not require the complainant EU producers to complete sampling forms and therefore, the EU producers’ sample was selected in the absence of requisite data, on the basis of limited — unverifiable — data provided by the complainants. The applicant argues that, consequently, they were precluded from verifying the suitability of the sample selected. It further contends that the EU institutions treated interested parties placed in comparable situations in a different manner without any objective reasons and breached the fundamental principle of non-discrimination.
   Second, the applicant claims that in the selection of the EU producers’ sample the Council committed a manifest error of appraisal and violated Article 17(1) of the basic regulation. It submits that the EU producers’ sample did not constitute the largest representative volume of production or sales that could reasonably be investigated in the time available within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the basic regulation and the sample was predominantly selected on the basis of criteria not mentioned in this provision.
   Third, the applicant contends that the Council violated Article 6.10 of the World Trade Organization Anti-dumping Agreement by not applying Article 17(1) of the basic regulation in conformity with the former. The Council did not establish a sample of EU producers that represented the largest percentage of volume of production or sales as required by Article 6.10 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.
   Fourth, the applicant argues that in determining likelihood of continuation of injury, the Council breached Articles 3(l), 3(2), 3(5) and 11(2) of the basic regulation and made manifest error of assessment of the facts. In the applicant’s view, the Council wrongly established likelihood of continuation of injury in the absence of measures on the basis of the finding of continued injury during the review investigation period (“RIP”) to the EU industry based on the macroeconomic data that included data of producers not part of the EU industry and on the basis of unverified data. Additionally, the microeconomic indicators were evaluated on the basis of the data of an unrepresentative sample of EU producers.
   Fifth, the applicant claims that by granting confidential treatment to the identity of the complainant EU producers, the Council violated Article 19(1) of the basic regulation and breached the rights of defence since it granted confidential treatment without good cause and without thoroughly examining the confidentiality claims.
   Sixth, it submits that in the establishment of the product control number (“PCN”) system for the classification of the product under consideration, the Council violated Article 2(10) and 3(2) of the basic regulation, and the principle of diligence and sound administration. The applicant considers that the PCN system used and the reclassification of certain footwear categories in the middle of the investigation precluded a fair comparison between the normal value and export price. Furthermore, in the applicant’s view, this also precluded an objective examination of both the volume of the dumped imports and the effects of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products and the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products. The applicant also submits that the Council did not examine carefully and impartially all the relevant elements and the duly substantiated reasons necessitating a change in the PCN system as suggested by the applicant.
   Finally, the applicant claims that in selecting the analogue country, the Council violated the principle of diligence and sound administration, committed a manifest errors in the assessment of the facts and violated Article 2(7)a of the basic regulation. The applicant considers that the Council committed serious procedural irregularities in the selection of Brazil as the analogue country since this selection was not done in an appropriate and reasonable manner in this case.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 352, p. 1

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


title: Case T-96/16: Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.) (EU trade mark — Application for the EU word mark STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS. — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 24 January 2017 — Solenis Technologies v EUIPO (STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS.)
   (Case T-96/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS. - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 070/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Solenis Technologies LP (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: A. Sanz Cerralbo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer and A. Kusturovic, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 December 2015 (Case R 613/2015-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign STRONG BONDS. TRUSTED SOLUTIONS. as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Solenis Technologies LP to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 156, 2.5.2016.


title: Case C-583/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 13 December 2010 — The United States of America v Christine Nolan

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) made on 13 December 2010 — The United States of America v Christine Nolan
   (Case C-583/10)
   2011/C 89/08
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The United States of America

      Defendant: Christine Nolan

      Question referred

   Does the employer's obligation to consult about collective redundancies, pursuant to Directive 98/59/EC (1), arise (i) when the employer is proposing, but has not yet made, a strategic business or operational decision that will foreseeably or inevitably lead to collective redundancies; or (ii) only when that decision has actually been made and he is then proposing consequential redundancies?

      (1)  Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies
   OJ L 225, p. 16


title: Removal from the register of C-339/96

text:
31 . 5 . 97           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 166/ 13
          Removal from the register of C-339/96 ( ] )               a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des Affaires de Sé
                         ( 97/C 166/28 )                            curité Sociale des Bouches du Rhône ): Joao Farias v.
                                                                    Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie du Sud-est.
By order of 5 March 1997 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-339/96 ( reference for              OJ No C 354 , 23 . 11 . 1996 .
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 March 1997
                     of 26 February 1997
                                                                    in Case T-6/97 R: Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit
in Case T-191/96 R: C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta SpA v.                Europe Ltd & Co. v. Commission of the European
          Commission of the European Communities                                                Communities
(Competition — Procedure on application for interim                 (Common organization of the markets — Bananas —
measures — Application for suspension of operation of a             Provisional reduction coefficient — Suspension of
                            measure)                                operation — Interim measures — Admissibility of the
                                                                    application for interim measures — Serious and
                           97/C 166/29                                                      irreparable harm)
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/30 )
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                    In Case T-6/97 R, Comafrica SpA, established in Genoa,
                                                                    Italy, and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co., established
In Case T-191/96 R: C. A. S. Succhi di Frutta SpA,                  in Hamburg, Germany, represented by Bernard O'Connor,
established in Verona ( Italy), represented by Alberto              Solicitor, and Bonifacio Garcia Porras, of the Salamanca
Miele, of the Padua Bar, Antonio Tizzano and Gian                   Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Carlo Scarpa, of            Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 Avenue Marie-
the Venice Bar, with an address for service at the Tizzano          Adèlaïde, against Commission of the European
Chambers, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, v.                    Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis ) — application under
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Paolo               Articles 185 and 186 of the EC Treaty for: ( i ) an order
Ziotti and Alberto Dal Ferro ) — application for                    suspending operation of Commission Regulation ( EEC )
suspension of operation of the decision of the Commission           No 2035/96 of 24 October 1996 fixing the single
                                                                    reduction     coefficient     for  the  determination of  the
of 6 September 1996 amending its decision of 14 June
 1996 on the supply of fruit juice and fruit jams intended          provisional quantity of bananas to be allocated to each
for the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan, provided for by           operator in Categories A and B from the tariff quota for
Regulation ( EC ) No 228/96 — the President of the Court            1997 ( OJ No L 272, 1996 , p. 6 ) in so far as that
of First Instance made an order on 26 February 1997, the            regulation affects the applicants; or, alternatively, erga
operative part of which is as follows :                             omnes, ( ii ) an order that the correct number of licences be
                                                                    issued to the applicants in accordance with their rights
                                                                    under Community law; and ( iii ) any additional orders
                                                                    which the Court considers necessary for the purposes of
                                                                    granting interim relief to the applicants — the President of
 1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;             the Court of First Instance made an order on 3 March
                                                                     1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                     1.  The application for interim measures is dismissed.
 2.  the costs are reserved.
                                                                    2.   Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-446/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 August 2015 — Signum Alfa Sped Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 18 August 2015 — Signum Alfa Sped Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság
   (Case C-446/15)
   (2015/C 381/18)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Signum Alfa Sped Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the provisions of Directive 2006/112 (1) concerning the deduction of VAT to be interpreted as meaning that the tax authorities may in general require a taxable person, who wishes to exercise his right to deduct VAT to check, in order that the tax authorities should not treat the financial transaction as a sham, whether the issuer of the invoice for the services in respect of which he wishes to exercise the right to deduct has the necessary personal and material resources for providing the service in question, both when the service is provided and when the check is made, and whether he has satisfied his obligations as regards declaration and payment of VAT, or to be in possession of documents relating to the financial transaction, other than the invoice, that do not contain formal defects? May the issuer of the invoice be required to carry on its economic activity without any irregularity, not only at the time of the legal transaction forming the basis of the right to deduct VAT, but also at the time of the tax inspection?

               2.

               If the tax authorities, having regard to the circumstances described in the first question, should declare that, although the financial transaction has taken place, the content of the invoice lacks verisimilitude, because that transaction was not performed between the parties mentioned in the invoice, are the tax authorities required, in view of the fact that, as a general rule, the burden of proof lies with them, also to ascertain who the persons are that performed the legal transaction in such a case and who it was that issued the invoice, or may the tax authorities refuse the right to deduct claimed by the taxable person, without conclusive proof of the abovementioned elements of fact, without information or circumstances indicating the name or role of the third person, but merely on the basis of what has been declared in that respect by the tax authorities themselves?

               3.

               Are the provisions of Directive 2006/112 concerning the deduction of VAT to be interpreted as meaning that the tax authorities, even if they do not deny that the financial transaction recorded in the invoice has taken place or that the invoice formally satisfies the legal requirements, may refuse the right to deduct VAT without examining due diligence — virtually basing their decision on strict liability — on the grounds that, because the financial transaction was not performed between the parties mentioned in the invoice, the fact that the content of the invoice lacks verisimilitude precludes, ex hypothesi, examination of due diligence, or rather, in such circumstances, the tax authorities refusing the right to deduct are required also to show that the taxable person wishing to exercise the right to deduct knew of the irregular conduct — designed, as the case may be, to evade tax — of the undertaking with which he maintained contractual relations, or even participated in that irregular conduct?

               4.

               If the answer to the previous question is in the affirmative, is it compatible with the provisions of Directive 2006/112 and with the principles of fiscal neutrality, legal certainty and proportionality, affirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its case-law, for that legislation to be interpreted as meaning that the due diligence of the addressee of the invoice may be examined only if it can be shown that there was a transaction between the parties, that is to say, if the financial transaction took place between the parties in the manner specified in the invoice, and that there are only other kinds of irregularities, for example formal defects, particularly bearing in mind that the national tax legislation contains provisions relating to invoices with formal defects or invoices issued without any financial transaction?

      (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 T-107/14: Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 — Single payment entitlements scheme — National reserve — Allocation criteria — Risk to the Fund — Cross compliance)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 19 November 2015 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-107/14) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 - Single payment entitlements scheme - National reserve - Allocation criteria - Risk to the Fund - Cross compliance))
   (2016/C 016/35)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented: initially by I. Chalkias, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, and subsequently by M. Kanellopoulos, E. Leftheriotou and A. Vasilopoulou, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 338, p. 81), in so far as the Hellenic Republic is concerned.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Implementing Decision 2013/763/EU of 12 December 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), in so far as it imposes a flat-rate correction on the Hellenic Republic relating to the allocation of entitlements from the national reserve and in so far as the European Commission applied to the Hellenic Republic a financial correction in respect of 2008 relating to cross-compliance;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 28.4.2014.


title: Case T-508/15: Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/29

         Action brought on 2 September 2015 — Republic of Lithuania v European Commission
   (Case T-508/15)
   (2015/C 371/32)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Lithuania (represented by: D. Kriaučiūnas, R. Krasuckaitė, M. Palionis and A. Petrauskaitė, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1119 of 22 June 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), in so far as it is addressed to the Republic of Lithuania and relates to the Scheme for early retirement from agricultural commodities production (budget item: 6711);

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging infringement of EU law:
   By adopting the contested decision, the Commission infringed Article 52(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 (1) in conjunction with the principle of proportionality, because:

               (1)

               Without taking into account the nature of the infringement and the financial damage caused to the European Union, the Commission applied a flat-rate correction, although the information presented following the ex-post verification of all applications, carried out by Lithuania in an appropriate and reasonable manner, made it possible to determine with precision the financial damage actually caused to the European Union. The Government of the Republic of Lithuania asserts that the ex-post verifications carried out by the Lithuanian authorities are an appropriate means of determining the actual damage to the funds, because:

                           —

                           the criteria chosen for the verifications are consistent with the concept of agricultural commodities production;

                           —

                           the Commission wrongly linked the concept of agricultural commodities production with the concept of semi-subsistence farms;

                           —

                           the Commission failed to take into account the objectives of the Republic of Lithuania and the measures which were set out clearly in the rural development programme documents.

               (2)

               In any event, the Commission misapplied the excessive 5 % financial correction, since the application of that correction is provided for solely when the risk of loss to the EU budget is significant, whereas the verifications carried out and the information presented by the Republic of Lithuania proved that only a small financial risk to the EU budget could have arisen.

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 352/78, (EC) No 165/94, (EC) No 2799/98, (EC) No 814/2000, (EC) No 1290/2005 and (EC) No 485/2008 (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 549).


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 4 March 2004 In Case C-334/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   4 March 2004
   In Case C-334/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Tax on income arising from investments - Debtor not resident or established in France - Exclusion of the fixed levy as the rate - National legislation contrary to the terms of the Treaty)
   (2004/C 94/15)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-334/02: Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: R. Lyal and C. Giolito), with an address for service in Luxembourg, against French Republic, (Agents: G. de Bergues and P. Boussaroque): Application for a declaration that by excluding altogether application of the rate of the fixed levy to income arising from the investments and contracts referred to in Articles 125-0 A and 125 A of the Code général des impôts where the debtor is not resident or established in France, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 and 56 EC, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2003, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by excluding altogether application of the rate of the fixed levy to income arising from the investments and contracts referred to in Articles 125-0 A and 125 A of the Code général des impôts where the debtor is not resident or established in France, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 and 56 EC;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.


title: Case C-276/11 P: Appeal lodged on 3 June 2011 by Viega GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-375/06, Viega GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/5

         Appeal lodged on 3 June 2011 by Viega GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2011 in Case T-375/06, Viega GmbH & Co. KG v European Commission

   (Case C-276/11 P)
   2011/C 238/10
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Viega GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: J. Burrichter, T. Mäger and M. Röhrig, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

               —

               annul the judgment under appeal in so far as it adversely affects the appellant;

               —

               annul, in so far as it concerns the appellant, Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Joints);

               —

                     in the alternative
                   to the heads of claim appearing in points 1 and 2, refer the case back to the General Court for a ruling;

               —

               order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs in relation to the whole dispute.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This appeal is directed against the judgment of the General Court whereby the latter dismissed the action by the appellant against Commission Decision C(2006) 4180 final of 20 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F-1/38.121 — Joints).
   The appellant bases its appeal on the following grounds.
   The General Court infringed the appellant’s right to be heard, the principles governing the taking of evidence and the duty to state reasons for the decision given. In order to demonstrate the appellant’s participation in the cartel, the judgment under appeal relied mainly on handwritten notes of a single witness and a plea for leniency without making any mention of the appellant’s arguments on the subject of those documents. The appellant expressly cast doubt on the accuracy of those documents (the witness did not take part in the German meetings and did not speak German).
   The appellant considers that the General Court should have ordered measures of inquiry in relation to the accuracy of the witness notes and the plea for leniency. By using those notes and the plea for leniency as evidence without verifying their accuracy, the General Court infringed the principles governing the taking of evidence.
   The judgment under appeal infringed Article 81(1) EC inasmuch as the General Court held that the appellant had participated, on 30 April 1999, in a meeting ‘of an anti-competitive nature’. Moreover, the judgment under appeal also infringed Article 23(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 insamuch as participation at that meeting was taken into account when determining the amount of the fine. As regards that meeting, the General Court merely held that the evidence pointed ‘rather’ to an anti-competitive purpose than to a purpose in accordance with the competition rules. The General Court thus infringed the criterion for assessing evidence that it itself had fixed, which requires that the infringement be proved certainly and beyond dispute.
   The appellant argues that the finding that the meeting of 30 April 1999 was of an anti-competitive nature has an effect on the amount of the fine imposed. The taking into account of that meeting served as evidence of the appellant’s participation in a pressfittings cartel. The appellant’s turnover in the pressfittings sector was thus fixed, in the context of fixing the starting amount for the calculation of the fine, at an amount 11 times higher.
   As regards the taking into account of turnover in pressfittings, the judgment further showed a defect in reasoning and offended the laws of logic. The imposition of a fine of more than EUR 50 million was, in the final analysis, based solely, in paragraph 85 of the judgment under appeal, on two meetings the relation of which to pressfittings is dealt with in two half-sentences and established without any assessment of the evidence. Moreover, the General Court assumed that the appellant had participated in anti-competitive agreements concerning pressfittings at the meeting of 30 April 1999, whereas it also held that the latter’s competitors debated until June 2000 whether pressfittings (in which the appellant had a monopoly) should be the subject-matter of a cartel at all.
   Finally, the judgment under appeal infringed the principle of proportionality. The Commission — with the approval of the General Court — applied the guidelines for the calculation of fines as follows: it first fixed a starting amount by taking account of the turnover for pressfittings, even though, according to the findings of the General Court itself, pressfittings could have been the subject-matter of an anti-competitive agreement only in 2000 and 2001. It then increased the starting amount by 90 % in order to reflect the alleged overall duration of the appellant’s participation in the cartel (nine years and three months). The turnover figure for pressfittings having thus been taken into account for the whole of the period and not for the last part, of one year and three months, which was the most that could be relevant, the fixing of the amount of the fine infringed the principle of proportionality.


title: Case T-439/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 8 September 2011 — Fulmen v Council (Interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation — Lack of urgency)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/22

         Order of the President of the General Court of 8 September 2011 — Fulmen v Council
   (Case T-439/10 R)
   (Interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation - Lack of urgency)
   2011/C 319/46
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Fulmen (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: A. Kronshagen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and R. Liudvinaviciute-Cordeiro, Agents)

      Party intervening in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, T. Scharf and E. Cujo, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of the following contested measures in so far as they concern the applicant:

               —

               Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39);

               —

               Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25);

               —

               Council Decision 2010/644/CFSP of 25 October 2010 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 81);

               —

               Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is rejected.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-320/11: Order of the General Court of 18 December 2012 — Hungary v Commission (Action for annulment — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Point from which time starts to run — Out of time — Inadmissibility)

text:
               23.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/13

         Order of the General Court of 18 December 2012 — Hungary v Commission
   (Case T-320/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Point from which time starts to run - Out of time - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 55/23
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Hungary (represented by: M. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó and K. Veres, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. von Rintelen and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/192/EU of 28 March 2011 excluding from EU financing certain expenditure incurred by Hungary under the programme for the support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development (Sapard) in 2004 (OJ 2011 L 81, p. 14).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Hungary is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2001 in Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C52/98 to C-54/98 and C-68/98 to C-71/98 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden): Finalarte Sociedade de Construção Civil Ld.a v Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft, Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft v Amilcar Oliveira Rocha and Others, Portugaia Construções Ld.a v Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft, Engil Sociedade de Construção Civil SA v Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft (Freedom to provide services — Temporary deployment of workers for the purposes of performing a contract — Paid leave and holiday pay)

text:
5.1.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 3/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft and Tecnamb-Tecnolo-
                                                                             gia do Ambiente Ld.a (C-53/98), Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichs-
                                                                             kasse der Bauwirtschaft and Turiprata Construções Civil Ld.a
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             (C-54/98), Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirt-
                                                                             schaft and Duarte dos Santos Sousa (C-68/98), and Urlaubs-
                       of 25 October 2001                                    und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft and Santos &
                                                                             Kewitz Construções Ld.a (C-69/98), Portugaia Construções Ld.a
                                                                             and Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft
in Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C52/98 to C-54/98 and                      (C-70/98) and between Engil Sociedade de Construção Civil
C-68/98 to C-71/98 (references for a preliminary ruling                      SA and Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft
from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden): Finalarte Sociedade                      (C-71/98) — on the interpretation of Articles 48 and 59 of
de Construção Civil Ld.a v Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichs-                     the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 49
kasse der Bauwirtschaft, Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskas-                     EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) and
se der Bauwirtschaft v Amilcar Oliveira Rocha and                            subparagraph (b) of the second indent of the first paragraph of
Others, Portugaia Construções Ld.a v Urlaubs- und                           Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament
Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft, Engil Sociedade                       and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the
de Construção Civil SA v Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichs-                       posting of workers in the framework of the provision of
                   kasse der Bauwirtschaft (1)                               services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
                                                                             composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
(Freedom to provide services — Temporary deployment of                       D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo,
workers for the purposes of performing a contract — Paid                     Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
                      leave and holiday pay)                                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 October 2001, in which
                                                                             it has ruled:
                           (2002/C 3/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             1.    Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
                                                                                EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) do
                                                                                not preclude a Member State from imposing national rules,
In Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98 to C-54/98 and                           such as those laid down by the first sentence of Article 1(3) of
C-68/98 to C-71/98: references to the Court under Article 177                      the Arbeitnehmerentsendegesetz (German law on the posting of
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeitsgericht                      workers) guaranteeing entitlement to paid leave for posted
(Labour Court) Wiesbaden (Germany) for a preliminary ruling                        workers, on a business established in another Member State
in the proceedings pending before that court between Finalarte                     which provides services in the first Member State by posting
Sociedade de Construção Civil Ld.a and Urlaubs- und Lohnaus-                      workers for that purpose, on the two-fold condition that: (i) the
gleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft (C-49/98), Urlaubs- und                             workers do not enjoy an essentially similar level of protection
Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft and Amilcar Oliveira                         under the law of the Member State where their employer is
Rocha (C-50/98), and Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der                          established, so that the application of the national rules of the
Bauwirtschaft and Tudor Stone Ltd (C-52/98), Urlaubs- und                          first Member State confers a genuine benefit on the workers
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/2                    EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.1.2002
     concerned, which significantly adds to their social protection,                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     and (ii) the application of those rules by the first Member State
     is proportionate to the public interest objective pursued.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
2.   (a)    Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty do not preclude the
            extension of the rules of a Member State which provide                                 of 20 September 2001
            for a longer period of paid leave than that provided for by
            Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
            concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working        in Case C-263/98: Kingdom of Belgium v Commission of
            time to workers posted to that Member State by providers                          the European Communities (1)
            of services established in other Member States during the
            period of the posting.
                                                                             (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1994 — Cereals, beef
                                                                                and veal)
     (b) Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty do not preclude national
            rules from allowing businesses established in the Federal
            Republic of Germany to claim reimbursement of expendi-                                      (2002/C 3/02)
            ture on holiday pay and holiday allowances from the fund,
            whereas it does not provide for such a claim in the case of
            businesses established in other Member States, but instead                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
            provides for a direct claim by the posted workers against
            the fund, in so far as that is justified by objective
            differences between businesses established in the Federal
            Republic of Germany and those established in other               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
            Member States.                                                                      in the European Court Reports)
     (c)    It is for the national court to determine the type of
            information that the German authorities may reasonably
            require of providers of services established outside the         In Case C-263/98: Kingdom of Belgium (Agents: J. Devadder
            Federal Republic of Germany, having regard to the                and, subsequently, A. Snoecx, and H. Gilliams) v Commission
            principle of proportionality. For this purpose, the national     of the European Communities (Agent: H. van Vliet) —
            court should consider whether the objective differences          application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision
            between the position of businesses established in Germany        98/358/EC of 6 May 1998 on the clearance of the accounts
            and that of businesses established outside Germany               presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure
            objectively require the additional information required of       for 1994 of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
            the latter.                                                      Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 1998 L 163,
                                                                             p. 28), in so far as it disallows, in respect of the applicant,
                                                                             Community financing for the sum of BEF 382 208 436 by
                                                                             way of expenditure incurred for the advance payment of
                                                                             export refunds — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:
3.   Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty preclude the application of a          C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet,
     Member State’s scheme for paid leave to all businesses                  R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodri-
     established in other Member States providing services to the            gues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
     construction industry in the first Member State where businesses        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
     established in the first Member State, only part of whose               20 September 2001, in which it:
     activities are carried out in that industry, are not all subject to
     that scheme in respect of their workers engaged in that industry.
                                                                             1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                             2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998; OJ C 166 of 30.5.1998.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case T-460/05: Action brought on  29 December 2005  — Bang & Olufsen/OHIM

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/26

         Action brought on 29 December 2005 — Bang & Olufsen/OHIM
   (Case T-460/05)
   (2006/C 74/49)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Bang & Olufsen AS (Struer, Denmark) [represented by: K. Wallberg, lawyer]

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision taken by the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) on 22 October 2005 in case No. R0497/2005-1 be annulled and

               —

               the defendant pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional mark in form of a vertical pencil-shaped loudspeaker on a low pedestal for goods in classes 9 and 20 — application No 3 354 371

      Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application for all the claimed goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: The mark is in accordance with Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 inherently distinctive for all the goods covered by the application and if not so, it has acquired distinctiveness through use in accordance with Article 7(3) of the Regulation.


title: Case C-521/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 5 October 2016 — Ralf-Achim Vetter, Susanne Glang-Vetter, Anna Louisa Vetter, Carolin Marie Vetter v Germanwings GmbH

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 5 October 2016 — Ralf-Achim Vetter, Susanne Glang-Vetter, Anna Louisa Vetter, Carolin Marie Vetter v Germanwings GmbH
   (Case C-521/16)
   (2017/C 030/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ralf-Achim Vetter, Susanne Glang-Vetter, Anna Louisa Vetter, Carolin Marie Vetter

      Defendant: Germanwings GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council to be interpreted as meaning that avoidability relates only to the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances or also to the consequences of the extraordinary circumstances, namely cancellation or major delay?

               2.

               If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: if the aircraft on the preceding flight is affected by the extraordinary circumstances, must the operating air carrier attempt to find a replacement aircraft already upon the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstances in the preceding flight, or can it wait until it is certain that the extraordinary circumstances lead to a considerable delay to the following flight?

               3.

               If the Court answers question 1 to the effect that avoidability relates to the delay: is booking a sub-charter flight unreasonable if the cost is approximately three times higher than the original flight?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ L 46, 17.2.2004, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  1 December 2005  in Case C-46/03: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Commission of the European Communities (Structural funds — Decommitment of amounts — Conditions — Manchester/Salford/Trafford 2 ( MST 2 ) Programme)

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Second Chamber)
   of 1 December 2005
   in Case C-46/03: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Structural funds - Decommitment of amounts - Conditions - Manchester/Salford/Trafford 2 (‘MST 2’) Programme)
   (2006/C 36/02)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-46/03: Action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 31 January 2003, by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: P. Ormond, R. Caudwell and K. Manji, assisted by D. Lloyd-Jones QC and S. Lee, barrister) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Flynn), supported by: Council of the European Union, (Agents M. Balta and F. Florindo Gijón and J. Carbery) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 1st December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities, contained in the letter of 22 November 2002, decommitting the sum of EUR 11 632 600 in respect of expenditure incurred under the Manchester/Salford/Trafford 2 operational programme;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.


title: Case T-56/06 RENV II: Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — France v Commission (State aid — Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duties on mineral oils — Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production — Exemption from excise — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Reasonable time)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 April 2016 — France v Commission
   (Case T-56/06 RENV II) (1)

   ((State aid - Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duties on mineral oils - Mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production - Exemption from excise - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Reasonable time))
   (2016/C 200/25)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, D. Colas and R. Coesme, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, N. Khan, G. Conte, D. Grespan and K. Walkerová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Article 5 of Commission Decision 2006/323/EC of 7 December 2005 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia, respectively, implemented by France, Ireland and Italy (OJ 2006 L 119, p. 12), in so far as it obliges the French Republic to recover the State aid incompatible with the common market it granted, between 3 February 2002 and 31 December 2003, on the basis of the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne region (France).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission in Cases T-56/06, T-56/06 RENV I and T-56/06 RENV II and three twentieths of the costs incurred by the Commission in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs in Cases T-56/06, T-56/06 RENV I and T-56/06 RENV II and one fifth of its own costs in Cases C-89/08 P and C-272/12 P.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case T-697/13: Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Kinnarps v OHIM (MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/25

         Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Kinnarps v OHIM (MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK)
   (Case T-697/13)
   2014/C 93/44
   Language in which the application was lodged: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kinnarps AB (Falköping, Sweden) (represented by: M. Wahlin, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2013 in Case R 2272/2012-2;

               —

               Declare that the applicant’s trade mark MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK, in respect of the goods and services claimed in the case, has the necessary distinctive character for registration as a Community trade mark;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs of the proceedings before both the General Court and OHIM.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark applied for: Word mark ‘MAKING LIFE BETTER AT WORK’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 20, 35 and 42 — application for registration of a Community trade mark No 10 887 982

      Decision of the Examiners: Rejection of the application for registration

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Failure to have regard to Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-119/10: Action brought on 5 March 2010 — Netherlands v Commission

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/77

         Action brought on 5 March 2010 — Netherlands v Commission
   (Case T-119/10)
   2010/C 113/111
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels, Y. de Vries and J. Langer, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul European Commission Decision No C(2009) 10712 of 23 December 2009 reducing assistance under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the Community Initiative (CI) Interreg II/C Inundation Rijn-Maas Programme in the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands pursuant to Commission Decision C(97) 3742 of 18 December 1997 (ERDF No 970010008);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its application, the applicant puts forward seven pleas in law:

               —

               breach of Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1) by reason of the determination of financial reductions on the basis of extrapolation, even though that provision does not provide any basis for so doing;

               —

               breach of Article 24(2) and (3) of Regulation No 4253/88 by reason of the imposition of flat-rate financial reductions, even though that provision does not provide any basis for so doing;

               —

               infringement of the principle of legal certainty by reason of the imposition of obligations on a Member State by reference to case-law of the Court of Justice dating from after the imposition of those obligations, which obligations, at the moment of their imposition, were not clear, precise and foreseeable for the Member States;

               —

               infringement of the principle of proportionality by reason of the imposition of a financial reduction of 25 % of the costs declared in connection with contracts, in which context there was a failure to comply with general principles such as those of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment;

               —

               infringement of the principle of proportionality by reason of the imposition of a financial reduction of 100 % of the costs declared in connection with contracts which exceed the threshold values of Directive 93/37/EEC, (2) Directive 93/36/EEC (3) or Directive 92/50/EEC (4) and which were awarded without any competition;

               —

               breach of the duty to state reasons through the failure to explain how the scope of the flat-rate reductions imposed was established;

               —

               breach of the duty to state reasons through the imposition of project-specific reductions for which insufficient reasons were given.

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

      (2)  Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54; corrigendum OJ 1994 L 111, p. 115).

      (3)  Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1).

      (4)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).


C 118/26              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.4.2001
        Removal from the register of Case C-8/00 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-102/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/58)                                                     (2001/C 118/61)
By order of 19 October 2000 the President of the Court of             By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-8/00: Commission of the European          from the register of Case C-102/99: (reference for a preliminary
Communities v Ireland.                                                ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Venezia):
                                                                      Veneta Assicurazioni SpA. v Ufficio del Registro di Padova.
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-331/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-421/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/59)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/62)
By order of 25 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-331/99: Commission of the                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v France.                                        from the register of Case C-421/99: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Italy.
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-95/00 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-469/99 (1)
                         (2001/C 118/60)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/63)
By order of 26 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 27 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-95/00: [reference for a preliminary       Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: O’Neill          from the register of Case C-469/99: Commission of the
Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o.                                            European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.


title: Case C-28/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. (MVM) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebviteli Igazgatósága

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria (Hungary) lodged on 18 January 2016 — Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. (MVM) v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebviteli Igazgatósága
   (Case C-28/16)
   (2016/C 156/30)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Magyar Villamos Művek Zrt. (MVM)

      Respondent: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebviteli Igazgatósága

      Questions referred

               1.

               May a holding company which plays an active role in the management of certain affairs of its subsidiaries, or of the group of companies as a whole, but which does not pass on to its subsidiaries the cost of the services carried out in relation to its active holding activity or the corresponding VAT be regarded as a taxable person for the purpose of VAT in respect of those services?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the active holding company exercise the right to deduct the VAT corresponding to the services used by it which are directly related to the taxed economic activity of some of its subsidiaries, and if so in what way?

               3.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the active holding company exercise the right to deduct the VAT corresponding to the services used which are in the interest of the group of companies as a whole, and if so in what way?

               4.

               Do the answers to be given to the above question differ if the active holding company bills its subsidiaries in respect of the abovementioned services as intermediary services, and if so to what extent?