title: Case T-260/11: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2014  — Spain v Commission (Fisheries — Conservation of fishery resources — Spain exceeding mackerel fishing quotas in zones VIIIc, IX and X in EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 for 2010 — Deductions from fishing quotas for 2011 to 2015 — Rights of the defense — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment)

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2014 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-260/11) (1)

   ((Fisheries - Conservation of fishery resources - Spain exceeding mackerel fishing quotas in zones VIIIc, IX and X in EU waters of CECAF 34.1.1 for 2010 - Deductions from fishing quotas for 2011 to 2015 - Rights of the defense - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment))
   2014/C 253/34
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: initially N. Díaz Abad and L. Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, then M. Sampoll Pucurull and Banciella Rodríguez-Miñón, abogados del Estado)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, F. Jimeno Fernández and D. Nardi, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission Regulation (EU) No 165/2011 of 22 February 2011 providing for deductions from certain mackerel quotas allocated to Spain in 2011 and subsequent years on account of overfishing in 2010 (OJ 2011 L 48, p. 11).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs and to pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case C-223/08: Action brought on 23 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/29

         Action brought on 23 May 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-223/08)
   (2008/C 171/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Huvelin)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by not adopting the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2006/100/EC of 20 November 2006 adapting certain Directives in the field of freedom of movement of persons, by reason of the accession of Bulgaria and Romania (1) and, in any event, by not having informed the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2006/100/EC expired on the date of accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, namely 1 January 2007. At the date of bringing this action, no transposing measure had been adopted or notified to the Commission by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ L 363, p. 141.


title: Case T-216/14: Action brought on 4 April 2014  — Volkswagen v OHIM (EXTRA)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/28

         Action brought on 4 April 2014 — Volkswagen v OHIM (EXTRA)
   (Case T-216/14)
   2014/C 194/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by U. Sander, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 February 2014 in Case R 1788/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘EXTRA’ for goods and services in Classes 12, 28, 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 69  155

      Decision of the Examiner: the application was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, by order of that court of 28 April 1998, in the case of Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. Lensing & Brockhausen GmbH (Case C-233/98)

text:
5.9.98                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 278/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di              multiplication coefficient used for setting the tax payable
Treviso by order of that court of 10 June 1998 in the case          for each band of vehicular fiscal horsepower increases
of Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Fallimento          unevenly, without reference to any objective criteria, so
                    Ditta Schiavon Silvano                          that the rise in tax is clearly linear up to the 18 CV tax
                       (Case C-230/98)                              band but then becomes sharply exponential from the
                                                                    19 CV band, this being the first band in which there is no
                         (98/C 278/27)                              vehicle of domestic manufacture?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di
Treviso (District Court, Treviso), which was received at
the Court Registry on 30 June 1998, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Amministrazione delle Finanze dello           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanz-
Stato (State Finance Administration) v. Receiver in                 hof, by order of that court of 28 April 1998, in the case of
bankruptcy of the firm Schiavon Silvano, on the follwing            Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. Lensing & Brockhausen
questions:                                                                                GmbH
                                                                                (Case C-233/98)
1. Whether Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC)                                             (98/C 278/29)
    No 545/92 (1) must be regarded as immediately
    conferring upon Community citizens a subjective right
    to relief from duty and tax on imports, with the result         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    that, in the absence of any indication of the authority         European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
    empowered to issue certificates of origin in the case of        (Federal Finance Court) of 28 April 1998, received at the
    certain former Yugoslav Republics, that right                   Court Registry on 2 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
    continues to exist even where a certificate has been            the case of Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg v. Lensing &
    issued by the body previously authorised, until such            Brockhausen GmbH on the following questions:
    time as the new body is designated;
                                                                    1. Is the first subparagraph of Article 36(3) of Council
2. Whether, on the contrary, the list in Annex I to                     Regulation (EEC) No 222/77 (1) in conjunction with
    Commission Regulation (EEC) No 859/92 (2) is                        Article 11a(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
    exhaustive and deprives the Savezni Trzisni                         No 1062/87 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that, in
    Inspektorat of any authority to issue certificates.                 the event of a failure to produce a consignment at the
                                                                        office of destination, the Member State of departure
(1) OJ L 63, 7.3.1992, p. 1.                                            has jurisdiction to levy import taxes only where the
(2) OJ L 89, 4.4.1992, p. 26.                                           period of three months laid down in the second
                                                                        subparagraph of Article 11a(2) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 1062/87 has previously been set for the principal
                                                                        and he has not furnished the proof required by that
                                                                        provision?
References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de              2. If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: Is
Grande Instance d'Epinal by judgments of that court of                  the third subparagraph of Article 36(3) of Regulation
25 June 1998 in the cases of Lomboley SA and Mr ReneÂ                   (EEC) No 222/77 to be interpreted as meaning that it
  Bouctot respectively against l'Administration des Impôts              is to be applied also in a case in which a customs
               (Cases C-231/98 and C-232/98)                            office of the Member State of departure has levied
                                                                        taxes due in respect of goods cleared for the transit
                         (98/C 278/28)                                  procedure but has not set a time limit in accordance
                                                                        with the second subparagraph of Article 11a(2) of
                                                                        Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87, the result being that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  the Member State of departure may refund the taxes
European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal de                    which it has assessed and levied without jurisdiction
Grande Instance d'Epinal (Regional Court, Epinal), of                   only where it is proved that the Member State in
25 June 1998, received at the Court Registry on 2 July                  which the offence or irregularity actually took place
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Lamboley                 has levied the taxes? Is a distinction to be drawn
SA and Mr ReneÂ Bouctot respectively against                            between taxes levied as own resources of the
l'Administration des Impôts (the Tax Authority) on the                  Community and other (national) taxes?
following question:
                                                                    (1) OJ L 38, 9.2.1977, p. 1.
                                                                    (2) OJ L 107, 22.4.1987, p. 1.
Is Article 95 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
precluding the application of legislation introducing a
system for taxing motor vehicles under which the


title: Case C-591/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 14 December 2010 — Littlewoods Retail Ltd and others v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 14 December 2010 — Littlewoods Retail Ltd and others v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-591/10)
   2011/C 89/12
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Littlewoods Retail Ltd and others

      Defendant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where a taxable person has overpaid VAT which was collected by the Member State contrary to the requirements of EU VAT legislation, does the remedy provided by a Member State accord with EU law if that remedy provides only for (a) reimbursement of the principal sums overpaid, and (b) simple interest on those sums in accordance with national legislation, such as section 78 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994?

               2.

               If not, does EU law require that the remedy provided by a Member State should provide for (a) reimbursement of the principal sums overpaid, and (b) payment of compound interest as the measure of the use value of the sums overpaid in the hands of the Member State and/or the loss of the use value of the money in the hands of the taxpayer?

               3.

               If the answer to both questions 1 and 2 is in the negative, what must the remedy that EU law requires the Member State to provide include, in addition to reimbursement of the principal sums overpaid, in respect of the use value of the overpayment and/or interest?

               4.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, does the EU law principle of effectiveness require a member state to disapply national law restrictions (such as sections 78 and 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994) on any domestic claims or remedies that would otherwise be available to the taxable person to vindicate the EU law right established in the Court of Justice's answer to the first 3 questions, or is it sufficient that the national court disapplies such restrictions only in respect of one of these domestic claims or remedies? What other principles should guide the national court in giving effect to this EU law right so as to accord with the EU law principle of effectiveness?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 December 2004 in Case T-11/02: Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Retirement — Monthly allowance under Article 50 of the Staff Regulations — Services taken into account in the calculation of the allowance — Employment prior to entry into the service of the Communities — Transfer of pension rights)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 16 December 2004
   in Case T-11/02: Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Officials - Retirement - Monthly allowance under Article 50 of the Staff Regulations - Services taken into account in the calculation of the allowance - Employment prior to entry into the service of the Communities - Transfer of pension rights)
   (2005/C 19/44)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-11/02: Spyridon de Athanassios Pappas, established in Kraainem (Belgium), represented by K. Adamantopoulos and V. Akritidis, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities – action for annulment of the decision of the Commission fixing the duration of the monthly allowance which the applicant receives following his retirement in the interests of the service under Article 50 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities – the Court of First Instance composed of M. Jaeger (single Judge); I. Natsinas, administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action:

               2.

               Orders the parties to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.


title: Case C-656/11: Action brought on 21 December 2011 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/20

         Action brought on 21 December 2011 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-656/11)
   2012/C 49/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Murrell, Agent and A. Dashwood QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council Decision of 16 December 2011 (1) on the position to be taken by the European Union in the Joint Committee established under the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, as regards the replacement of Annex II on the coordination of social security schemes;

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By an action brought under Article 263 TFEU, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is seeking the annulment, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, of the Council Decision of 16 December 2011 on the position to be taken by the Union in the Joint Committee established under the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, as regards the replacement of Annex II on the coordination of social security schemes.

               2.

               Article 48 TFEU is the sole substantive legal basis specified in the Decision.

               3.

               The Decision relates to the amendment of Annex II to the Agreement of 21 June 1999 between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, on the free movement of persons. Annex II to the Agreement is exclusively concerned with the coordination, as between the EU and Switzerland, of social security systems. The purpose of the amendments to Annex II that the disputed Decision would introduce is to reflect changes in the EU machinery of social security coordination. One effect of the contemplated changes to Annex II would be to extend to Swiss nationals who are neither themselves economically active nor members of the family of a person who is so active (‘non-actives’), rights that they do not derive from the present Annex II regime.

               4.

               In the contention of the United Kingdom, Article 48 TFEU cannot serve as the sole substantive legal basis of a measure intended to have such consequences. It is a provision designed to facilitate freedom of movement (a) within the Union, not between the Union and third countries; and (b) by persons who are economically active or their families, not by non-actives. The correct legal basis is Article 79 (2) (b) TFEU. This confers competence for the adoption of measures in the area of ‘the definition of the rights of third country nationals residing legally in a Member State, including the conditions governing freedom of movement and of residence in other Member States’.

               5.

               Article 79 (2) (b) TFEU is found in Title V of Part Three of the Treaty. Pursuant to Protocol 21 to the Treaties, measures adopted under Title V do not apply to the United Kingdom (or Ireland) unless it signals its willingness to ‘opt into’ them. By its erroneous choice of Article 48 TFEU, instead of Article 79 (2) (b) TFEU, as the substantive legal basis of the Decision, the Council refused to recognise the right of the United Kingdom to choose not to participate in the Decision and be bound by it.

               6.

               The annulment of the Council Decision of 16 December 2011 is, therefore, sought on the ground that it was adopted on the wrong legal basis, with the consequence that the rights of the United Kingdom under Protocol 21 were not recognised.

      (1)  OJ L 341 p. 1


title: Case T-442/14: Action brought on 16 June 2014  — Metalúrgica Galaica v Commission

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/60

         Action brought on 16 June 2014 — Metalúrgica Galaica v Commission
   (Case T-442/14)
   2014/C 253/82
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Metalúrgica Galaica, SA (Narón, A Coruña, Spain) (represented by: A. López Gómez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the decision categorising the measures which together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ (‘STLS’) as new State aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as the only beneficiaries of the alleged aid and, consequently, as solely liable for its recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid in breach of general principles of EU law;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of private contracts between the investors and other entities, in full or in such a way as to limit the bar on passing on the burden of recovery to the profitability of the operations; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those raised in Case T-401/14 Duro Felguera SA v Commission.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 March 1999 in Case T-141/94: Thyssen Stahl AG v. Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty - Competition - Agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices - Price-fixing - Market sharing - Systems for the exchange of information)

text:
C 160/14                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                             5.6.1999
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 11 March 1999                                                             of 11 March 1999
in Case T-141/94: Thyssen Stahl AG v. Commission of the                       in Case T-145/94: Unimétal — Société française des aciers
                     European Communities (1)                                 longs SA v. Commission of the European Communities (1)
(ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between                               (ECSC Treaty — Competition — Agreements between
undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and                   undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and
concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —                         concerted practices — Price-fixing — Market sharing —
             Systems for the exchange of information)                                     Systems for the exchange of information)
                            (1999/C 160/27)                                                             (1999/C 160/28)
                     (Language of the case: German)                                                (Language of the case: French)
In case T-141/94: Thyssen Stahl AG, established in Duisburg                   In case T-145/94: Unimétal - Société française des aciers longs
(Germany), represented, during the written procedure, by                      SA, having its registered office in Rombas (France), represented
Joachim Sedemund and Frank Montag, and, during the oral                       by Antoine Winckler and Caroline Levi, of the Paris and
procedure, by Frank Montag and Barbara Balke, Rechtsanwälte,                  Brussels Bars respectively, with an address for service in
Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger & Hoss, 15, Côte
Chambers of Aloyse May, 32, Grand-Rue, v. Commission of                       d’Eich, v. Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
the European Communities (Agents: initially Julian Currall,                   initially Julian Currall and Géraud Sajust de Bergues, and
Norbert Lorenz, and Géraud Sajust de Bergues, and sub-                        subsequently Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy Charri-
sequently Jean-Louis Dewost, Julian Currall and Guy Charrier,                 er) — application, principally, for the annulment of Com-
assisted by Hans-Joachim Freund) — application, principally,                  mission Decision 94/215/ECSC of 16 February 1994 relating
for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of                       to a proceeding pursuant to article 65 of the ECSC Treaty
16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article                 concerning agreements and concerted practices engaged in by
65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted                     European producers of beams (OJ L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1)
practices engaged in by European producers of beams (OJ                       — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended
L 116, 6.5.1994, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance                          Composition), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, acting as President,
(Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:                          A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; J. Palacio González, Adminis-
C. W. Bellamy, acting as President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,                trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 March
Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,               1999, in which it:
has given a judgement on 11 March 1999, in which it:
                                                                              1. annuls article 1 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
1. annuls article 1 of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of                          16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article
     16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to article                 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted
     65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and concerted                     practices engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as
     practices engaged in by European producers of beams in so far as              it finds that the applicant participated in an agreement to share
     it finds that the applicant participated in a price-fixing agreement          the Italian market which lasted three months,
     on the German market which lasted three months,
                                                                              2. fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by article 4
2. fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant by article 4              of Decision 94/215/ECSC at EUR 8 300 000,
     of Decision 94/215/ECSC at EUR 4 400 000,
                                                                              3. dismisses the remainder of the action,
3. dismisses the remainder of the action,
                                                                              4. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay half of the
4. orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay half of the               defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear half of its own costs.
     defendant’s costs. The defendant shall bear half of its own costs.
(1) OJ C 161, 11.6.1994.                                                      (1) OJ C 146, 28.5.1994.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 27 April 1995 in Case T-442/93: Association des Amidonneries de Céréales de la CEE (AAC) and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (State aids - Admissibility - Non-existence - Prior decision authorizing a general scheme of aid)

text:
No C 159/22          TEN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 6 . 95
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 27 April 1995                                                        of 27 April 1995
in Case T-435/93 : Association of Sorbitol Producers within               in Case T-442/93 : Association des Amidonneries de
the EC (Aspec) and Others v. Commission of the European                   Céréales de la CEE (AAC ) and Others v. Commission of the
                          Communities ( ] )                                                 European Communities (*)
(State aids — Admissibility — Non-existence —                             (State aids — Admissibility — Non-existence — Prior
Habilitation — Prior decision authorizing a general scheme                       decision authorizing a general scheme of aid)
                                  of aid)                                                          ( 95/C 159/47)
                             ( 95/C 159/46 )
                (Language of the case: English)                                          (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-435/95 : Association of Sorbitol Producers within
                                                                          In Case T-442/93 : Association des Amidonneries de
the EC ( Aspec ), established in Brussels, Cerestar Holding               Céréales de la CEE (AAC ), established in Brussels ,
BV, established at Sas van Gent, Netherlands, Roquette                    Levantina Agricola Industrial SA ( Laisa ), established in
Frères SA, established in Lestrem, France, Merck oHG,
                                                                          Barcelona, Spain, Società Piemontese Amidi e Derivati SpA
established in Darmstadt, Germany, represented by Nicole                  ( SPAD ), established in Lestrem, France, Pfeiffer & Langen ,
Coutrelis , of the Paris Bar, and by John A. Johnson, of the              established in Cologne, Germany, Ogilvie Aquitaine SA,
Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in                  established in Bordeaux, France, Cargill BV, established in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Loesch and Wolter,                   Amsterdam, Latenstein Zetmeel BV, established in
11 Rue Goethe, supported by the French Republic (Agent:                   Nijmegen, Netherlands, all represented by Michel
Catherine de Salins ), with an address for service in                     Waelbroeck and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar ,
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 9 Boulevard du Prince                   with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
Henri, and Casillo Grani snc, established in San Giuseppe                 of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, supported by
Vesuviano, Italy, represented by Mario Siragusa, Maurizio                 the French Republic (Agent: Catherine de Salins ), with an
D'Albora and Giuseppe Scassellati-Sforzolini , respectively               address for service in Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 9
of the Rome, Naples and Bologna Bars, with an address for                 Boulevard du Prince Henri, and Casillo Grani Snc,
service at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue
                                                                          established in San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy, represented by
Mathias Hardt v . Commission of the European                              Mario Siragusa, Maurizio D'Albora and Giuseppe
Communities ( Agents : D. Calleja y Crespo, M. Nolin and R.               Scassellati-Sforzolini, respectively of the Rome , Naples and
Lyal ), supported by Italgrani SpA, established in Naples,                Bologna Bars, with an address for service at the Chambers of
Italy, represented by Aurelio Pappalardo of the Trapani Bar,              E. Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of the
Luigi Sico and Felice Casucci, of the Naples Bar, and                     European Communities (Agents : M. Nolin, D. Calleja y
Massimo Annesi and Massimo Merola, of the Rome Bar,
                                                                          Crespo and R. Lyal ), supported by Italgrani SpA,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers                 established in Naples , Italy, represented by Aurelio
of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert I er — application for the                 Pappalardo of the Trapani Bar, Luigi Sico and Felice
annulment      of   Commission          Decision   91 /474/EEC   of
                                                                          Casucci , of the Naples Bar, and Massimo Annesi and
16 August 1991 concerning aids granted by the Italian                     Massimo Merola , of the Rome Bar, with an address for
Government to Italgrani SpA for the setting up of an                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 5 1
agri-foodstuffs complex in the Mezzogiorno ( 2 ) — the                    Rue Albert I er — application for the annulment of
Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, extended                        Commission Decision 91/474/EEC of 16 August 1991
composition ), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P.               concerning aids granted by the Italian Government to
M. Barrington, A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A.                             Italgrani SpA for the setting up of an agri-foodstuffs
Kalogeropoulos,          Judges,         J.   Palacio     Gonzalez,       complex in the Mezzogiorno (2 ) — the Court of First
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                 Instance ( Second Chamber, extended composition),
27 April 1995 , in which it:
                                                                          composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington,
                                                                          A. Saggio, H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges, J.
1 , annulled Commission Decision 91 /474/EEC of                           Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
      16 August 1991 concerning aids granted by the Italian               given a judgment on 27 April 1995 , in which it:
      Government to Italgrani SpA for the setting up of an
      agri-foodstuffs complex in the Mezzogiorno;
                                                                          1 , annulled Commission Decision 91 /474/EEC of
2 , ordered the Commission to bear its own costs together                     16 August 1991 concerning aids granted by the Italian
      with the costs incurred by the applicants;                              Government to Italgrani SpA for the setting up of an
                                                                              agri-foodstuffs complex in the Mezzogiorno;
3 , ordered the interveners to bear their own costs.
                                                                          2 , dismissed the remainder of the application;
(') OJ No C 47, 21 . 2 . 1992 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 254 , 11 . 9 . 1991 , p . 14 .
                                                                          3 , ordered the Commission to bear its own costs together
                                                                              with the costs incurred by the applicants;
 ---pagebreak--- 24. 6 . 95          [ EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 159/23
4 , ordered the interveners to bear their own costs.                       which are to be paid by the applicant. Each of the
                                                                           interveners shall pay its own costs.
(!) OJ No C 47, 21 . 2 . 1992 .
(2 ) OJ No L 254, 11 . 9 . 1991 , p. 14.                             ( i ) OJ No C 29, 2 . 2 . 1993 and OJ No C 62, 4 . 3 . 1993 .
                                                                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 286 , 1 . 10 . 1992 , p . 2 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                         of 2 May 1995                                         OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94 NTN Corporation                                         of 10 March 1995
and Koyo Seiko Co. Ltd. v. Council of the European
                                                                     in Case T-395/94 R: Atlantic Container Line AB and Others
                             Union O
                                                                             v. Commission of the European Communities
(Anti-dumping duty on ball-bearings — Review —
Regulation modifying a definitive anti-dumping duty —                                             95/C 159/49 )
                 Determination of the injury)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                          ( 95/C 159/48 )
                                                                     In Case T-395/94 R, Atlantic Container Line AB,
               (Language of the case: English)                       established in Gothenburg, Sweden, Cho Yang Shipping
                                                                     Company Ltd, established in Seoul, DSR-Senator Lines
In Joined Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94, NTN                           GmbH, established in Bremen, Germany, Hapag Lloyd AG,
Corporation, whose registered office is in Osaka (Japan ),           established in Hamburg, Germany, MSC Mediterranean
represented by Jürgen Schwarze and Malte Sprenger,                   Shipping Company SA, established in Geneva, Switzerland,
Rechtsanwalt, Dusseldorf, with an address for service in             A. P. Møller-Mærsk Line, established in Copenhagen,
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Penning, 78                     Nedlloyd Lijnen BV, established in Rotterdam, the
Grand-Rue, and Koyo Seiko Co . Ltd, whose registered                 Netherlands, Neptune Orient Lines Ltd (NOL), established
office is in Osaka, represented by Jacques Buhart of the Paris       in Singapore, Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK Line ),
Bar and Charles Kaplan, Barrister, with an address for               established in Tokyo, Orient Overseas Container Line (UK)
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Arendt               Ltd, established in Levington, United Kingdom, P&O
and Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Council of                 Containers Ltd, established in London, Polish Ocean Lines,
the European Union ( Agents: R. Torrent, J. Monteiro, H. -J.         established in Gdynia, Poland, Sea-Land Service Inc .,
Rabe and G. Berrisch ), supported by the Federation of               established in Jersey City, New Jersey, United States of
European        Bearing       Manufacturers '     Associations,      America, Tecomar SA de CV, established in Mexico DF, and
represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller,                    Transportación Maritima Mexicana SA, established in
Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service in               Mexico DF, represented by John Pheasant, Nicholas
Luxembourg in Case T-163/94 at the Chambers of Messrs                Bromfield and Suyong Kim, Solicitors, with an address for
Arendt and Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and in                 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &
Case T-165/94 at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue                  Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, supported by the Japanese
Michel Welter, and, in Case T-165/94 , supported also by the         Shipowners' Association, having its head office in Tokyo,
Commission of the European Communities (Agents : E.                  represented by Nicholas J. Forwood QC, of the Bar of
White and C. -M. Happe ) — application for the annulment             England and Wales, and Philip Rutley, Solicitor, with an
of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2849/92 of 28 September             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
1992 modifying the definitive anti-dumping duty on                   Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and the
imports of ball-bearings with a greatest external diameter           European Community Shipowners ' Associations ASBL,
exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by                      having its head office in Brussels, represented by Denis
Regulation (EEC ) No 1739/85 ( 2 ) — the Court of First              Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Instance ( Third Chamber, extended composition )                     in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10
composed of: J. Biancarelli, President, R. Schintgen, C. P.          Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission of the European
Briët, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas and C. W. Bellamy, Judges, H.            Communities (Agents : B. Langeheine and R. Lyal ),
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 May 1995 in               supported by the Freight Transport Association Ltd, having
which it:                                                            its head office in Tunbridge Wells, United Kingdom, the
                                                                     Association des Utilisateurs de Transport de Fret, having its
1 , annuls Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC)                     head office in Paris, and the European Council of Transport
     No 2849/92 of 28 September 1992 modifying the                   Users, having its head office in Brussels, represented by
     definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of                      Mark Clough, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales,
     ball-bearings with a greatest external diameter                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
     exceeding 30 mm originating in Japan imposed by                 of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue — application for an order
     Regulation (EEC) No 1 739/85, in so far as it imposes an        suspending the operation of Commission Decision
     anti-dumping duty on the applicants;                            94/980/EC of 19 October 1994 relating to a proceeding
                                                                     pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ( IV/34.446 —
2 , orders the Council to bear its own costs and those of the        Trans-Atlantic Agreement) ( a ) — the President of the Court
     applicants, with the exception of the costs of the              of First Instance has made an order on 10 March 1995 , the
     applicant in Case T-l 63/94 relating to the intervention,       operative part of which is as follows :


title: Case C-259/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Plovdiv v Rodopi-M 91 OOD (Taxation — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Belated recording in the accounts and declaration of the cancellation of an invoice — Remedying of the omission — Payment of the tax — State budget — No harm suffered — Administrative penalty)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/34

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Bulgaria) — Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Plovdiv v Rodopi-M 91 OOD
   (Case C-259/12) (1)

   (Taxation - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Belated recording in the accounts and declaration of the cancellation of an invoice - Remedying of the omission - Payment of the tax - State budget - No harm suffered - Administrative penalty)
   2013/C 225/58
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Plovdiv

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Teritorialna direktsia na NAP — Plovdiv

      Respondent: Rodopi-M 91 OOD

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Administrativen sad Plovdiv — Interpretation of Articles 242 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Administrative penalty imposed on the ground of late declaration of the cancellation of an invoice even though the cancellation has subsequently been entered in the accounts and the person concerned has paid the tax that results from the cancelled invoice not entered in the purchase ledger and in the tax return for the tax period in question — Fine equivalent to the total amount of tax not paid in time — Principle of fiscal neutrality

      Operative part of the judgment

   The principle of fiscal neutrality does not preclude the tax authorities of a Member State from imposing upon a taxable person who has not fulfilled within the period prescribed by national legislation his obligation to record in the accounts and to declare matters affecting the calculation of the value added tax for which he is liable a fine equal to the amount of the value added tax not paid within that period where the taxable person has subsequently remedied the omission and paid all the tax due, together with interest. It is for the national court to determine, in view of Articles 242 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, whether in the light of the circumstances of the main proceedings — in particular the period within which the irregularity was rectified, the seriousness of that irregularity, and the presence of any evasion or any circumvention of the applicable legislation that is attributable to the taxable person — the amount of the penalty imposed goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objectives of ensuring the correct collection of tax and preventing evasion.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.


title: Case F-111/12: Action brought on 2 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               8.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 379/35

         Action brought on 2 October 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-111/12)
   2012/C 379/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi, A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to accept the findings of the Medical Committee ruling on the applicant’s level of disability and the occupational origin of his disease

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 8 November 2011 to accept the findings of the Medical Commission dated 25 August 2011 and served on the applicant on 28 November 2011;

               —

               In so far as necessary, annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim dated 22 June 2012;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant the provisional fixed sum ex aequo et bono of EUR 100 000 in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-5/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 4 January 2008 — Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret (Denmark) lodged on 4 January 2008 — Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening
   (Case C-5/08)
   (2008/C 64/41)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Højesteret (Supreme Court)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Infopaq International A/S

      Defendant: Danske Dagblades Forening (Danish Daily Newspaper Publishers' Association)
   Questions referred

               (i)

               Can the storing and subsequent printing out of a text extract from an article in a daily newspaper, consisting of a search word and the five preceding and five subsequent words, be regarded as acts of reproduction which are protected (see Article 2 of the Infosoc Directive (1))?

               (ii)

               Is the context in which temporary acts of reproduction take place relevant to whether they can be regarded as ‘transient’ (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive)?

               (iii)

               Can a temporary act of reproduction be regarded as ‘transient’ where the reproduction is processed, for example, by the creation of a text file on the basis of an image file or by a search for text strings on the basis of a text file?

               (iv)

               Can a temporary act of reproduction be regarded as ‘transient’ where part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, is stored?

               (v)

               Can a temporary act of reproduction be regarded as ‘transient’ where part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, is printed out?

               (vi)

               Is the stage of the technological process at which temporary acts of reproduction take place relevant to whether they constitute ‘an integral and essential part of a technological process’ (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive)?

               (vii)

               Can temporary acts of reproduction be an ‘integral and essential part of a technical process’ if they consist of manual scanning of entire newspaper articles whereby the latter are transformed from a printed medium into a digital medium?

               (viii)

               Can temporary acts of reproduction constitute an ‘integral and essential part of a technological process’ where they consist of printing out part of the reproduction, comprising one or more text extracts of 11 words?

               (ix)

               Does ‘lawful use’ (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive) include any form of use which does not require the copyright holder's consent?

               (x)

               Does ‘lawful use’ (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive) include the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles, subsequent processing of the reproduction, and the storing and possible printing out of part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, for use in the business's summary writing, even where the rightholder has not given consent to those acts?

               (xi)

               What criteria should be used to assess whether temporary acts of reproduction have ‘independent economic significance’ (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive) if the other conditions laid down in the provision are satisfied?

               (xii)

               Can the user's efficiency gains from temporary acts of reproduction be taken into account in assessing whether the acts have ‘independent economic significance’ (see Article 5(1) of the Infosoc Directive)?

               (xiii)

               Can the scanning by a commercial business of entire newspaper articles, subsequent processing of the reproduction, and the storing and possible printing out of part of the reproduction, consisting of one or more text extracts of 11 words, without the rightholder's consent be regarded as constituting ‘certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation’ of the newspaper articles and ‘not unreasonably [prejudicing] the legitimate interests of the rightholder’ (see Article 5(5))?

      (1)  Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ L 167, p. 10).


title: Case C-541/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Varese (Italy) lodged on 17 December 2009 — Mohammed Mohiuddin Siddiquee v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Provincia di Varese

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Varese (Italy) lodged on 17 December 2009 — Mohammed Mohiuddin Siddiquee v Azienda Sanitaria Locale Provincia di Varese
   (Case C-541/09)
   2010/C 63/49
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di Pace di Varese

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mohammed Mohiuddin Siddiquee

      Defendant: Azienda Sanitaria Locale Provincia di Varese

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 4 of Community Regulation No 882/2004, (1) in conjunction with Article 6 thereof, establish an individual right for citizens to be subject to controls on foodstuffs and beverages only by staff who fulfil the requirements laid down in that regulation, and may such a right be relied on in legal proceedings and used as a defence to enforcement action by the Member States?

               2.

               If not, is Directive 2000/13/EC, (2) in the context of the Community rules governing the labelling of foodstuffs and beverages, based on considerations of health?

               3.

               Is it contrary to Directive 76/768/EEC (3) as subsequently amended, or to other relevant Community rules for a Member State to differentiate between the liability of the various operators in the industry, excluding the trader from liability by the very nature of his activity as a trader?

               4.

               If not, must Article 6 of Directive 76/768/EEC as amended be interpreted as giving rise to the joint and several liability of the cosmetics manufacturer and the mere trader who takes no part in the manufacture, packaging or labelling of the cosmetic?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29.

      (3)  OJ 1976 L 262, p. 169.


title: Case F-143/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 March 2015 — Singou v Council (Civil Service — Contract staff — Rejection of a complaint of psychological harassment — Non-renewal of contract — No claim — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/44

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 March 2015 — Singou v Council
   (Case F-143/14)
   ((Civil Service - Contract staff - Rejection of a complaint of psychological harassment - Non-renewal of contract - No claim - Manifestly inadmissible))
   (2015/C 155/64)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Simplice Gervais Singou (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Dambel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 5 March 2009 to reject a complaint of psychological harassment made by the applicant and application to annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 12 April 2012 by which the Appointing Authority refused to extend the applicant’s contract or transform it into a permanent contractual staff contract, and applications for damages for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The application for legal aid is rejected.

               3.

               Mr Singou shall bear his own costs.


title: Case T-258/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2009 — Poland v Commission (Action for annulment — Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector — Time-limit for bringing action — Point from which time starts to run — Lateness — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/21

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2009 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-258/04) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Transitional measures to be adopted by reason of the accession of new Member States — Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector - Time-limit for bringing action - Point from which time starts to run - Lateness — Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 193/33
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: J. Pietras and E. Ośniecka-Tamecka, initially, then T. Nowakowski and finally M. Dowgielewicz, Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Visaggio and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, initially, then T. van Rijn, L. Visaggio and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: P. Kliridis, Agent)

      Re:

   Annulment of Articles 5, 6(1) to (3), 7(1) and 8(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 of 14 January 2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 9, p. 8)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Republic of Poland is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission.

               3.

               The Republic of Cyprus is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, of 9.10.2004.


               16.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 216/13

         Action brought on 22 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-35/15)
   (2016/C 216/10)
   An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 22 December 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Carsten Zatschler, Markus Schneider and Øyvind Bø, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising under the Act referred to at point 56i of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues) within the time limit prescribed by

                           a.

                           failing to develop and implement an appropriate waste reception and handling plan for each port in Norway as required by Article 5(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC;

                           b.

                           failing to evaluate and approve the waste reception and handling plans for all ports in Norway, monitor their implementation and ensure their re-approval at least every three years as required by Article 5(3) of Directive 2000/59/EC; and

                           c.

                           failing to ensure the availability of port reception facilities in all ports in Norway adequate to meet the needs of ships normally using the port without causing undue delay to ships as required by Article 4(1) of Directive 2000/59/EC.

               2.

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority (‘ESA’) claims that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to comply in time with key obligations for the protection of the marine environment under Directive 2000/59/EC (the ‘Directive’ or the ‘Port Reception Facilities Directive’).

               —

               In order to reduce the discharge of ship-generated waste and cargo residues into the sea, the Directive obliges the EEA States to ensure that adequate facilities, capable of receiving ship-generated waste and cargo residues, are available in all their ports and to develop and implement waste reception and handling plans for each port.

               —

               On 23 October 2007 the Norwegian authorities notified ESA that the Port Reception Facilities Directive had been implemented into national law.

               —

               At the request of ESA, the European Maritime Safety Agency carried out an inspection, and issued a report on 28 September 2010, presenting, inter alia, the shortcomings of Norway’s compliance with the Directive.

               —

               ESA delivered a reasoned opinion on 10 July 2013, which maintained that Norway had failed to fulfil, inter alia, its obligations under Article 4(1), 5(1) and 5(3) of the Directive. Norway was requested to take the necessary measures to comply with the reasoned opinion no later than 10 September 2013.

               —

               ESA submits that, by that date, Norway failed to comply with its obligations (i) to develop and implement an appropriate waste reception and handling plan for each port in Norway as required by Article 5(1) of the Directive; (ii) to evaluate and approve the waste reception and handling plans for all ports in Norway, monitor their implementation and ensure their re-approval at least every three years as required by Article 5(3) of the Directive; and (iii) to ensure the availability of port reception facilities in all ports in its territory as required by Article 4(1) of the Directive.


title: Case T-307/12: Action brought on 11 July 2012 — Mayaleh v Council

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/19

         Action brought on 11 July 2012 — Mayaleh v Council
   (Case T-307/12)
   2012/C 273/32
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Adib Mayaleh (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul:

                           —

                           Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012 implementing Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh;

                           —

                           Implementing Regulation No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012 implementing Article 32(1) of Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria in so far as it concerns Mr Adib Mayaleh;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs under Articles 87 and 91 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on seven pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those put forward in Case T-383/11 Makhlouf v Council. (1)

      (1)  OJ 2011 C 282, p. 30.


title: Case C-214/05 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA against the judgment delivered on 1 March 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-169/03 between Sergio Rossi SpA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/31

         Appeal brought on 17 May 2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA against the judgment delivered on 1 March 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-169/03 between Sergio Rossi SpA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-214/05 P)
   (2005/C 182/54)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 March 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-169/03 between Sergio Rossi SpA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May 2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA, represented by A. Ruo of the Alicante Bar (Spain).
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside in full the judgment under appeal for infringement of Articles 8 and 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and Articles 44(1) and 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance;

               2.

               in the alternative, set aside in part the judgment under appeal only as regards the registration of the trade mark SISSI ROSSI in respect of ‘leather and imitations of leather’;

               3.

               in the further alternative, uphold the right to produce evidence, set aside in full the judgment under appeal and refer the present dispute back to the Court of First Instance for it to examine the evidence held to be inadmissible or, in the alternative and, pursuant to the right to be heard under Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, refer the present dispute to the Board of Appeal of OHIM for it to set a time-limit within which the parties can present their comments;

               4.

               order the respondent as the unsuccessful party to pay the costs pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is flawed in that it infringes the following rules:

               1.

               Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance in that the judgment under appeal does not state reasons in respect of the primary claim made in the action.

               2.

               Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance in that evidence produced by the appellant, which in the opinion of the appellant should have been accepted, was held to be inadmissible; in the alternative, the appellant submits that Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark was infringed in that, in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, the appellant was not given the opportunity to present its comments on whether or not the goods in question are similar.

               3.

               Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark in that the marks Miss Rossi and Sissi Rossi should be regarded as incompatible. Given the similarity of both the goods and the marks the question of whether there is a likelihood of confusion between those marks within the meaning of that article should be reconsidered.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-428/16: Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL LOVER)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/47

         Action brought on 29 July 2016 — Martín Osete v EUIPO — Rey (AN IDEAL LOVER)
   (Case T-428/16)
   (2016/C 343/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Isabel Martín Osete (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Wellens, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Daniella Rey (Toulouse, France)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘AN IDEAL LOVER’ — EU trade mark No 5 261 599

      Procedure before EUIPO: Cancellation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 April 2016 in Case R 1527/2015-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 55(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-124/06: Action brought on  27 April 2006  — MIP METRO v OHIM — MetroRED Telecom (MetroRED)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/34

         Action brought on 27 April 2006 — MIP METRO v OHIM — MetroRED Telecom (MetroRED)
   (Case T-124/06)
   (2006/C 143/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: MIP METRO Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: MetroRED Telecom Group Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 16 February 2006 as far as the appeal has been dismissed on the grounds that it does not comply with Art 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for the Community trade mark: MetroRED Telecom Group Ltd.

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MetroRED’ for services in classes 35, 38 and 42 — application No 2 189 512
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘METRO’ for goods and services in classes 1 to 36 and 38 to 42
   Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially rejected
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal partially dismissed

      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion since the mark ‘MetroRED’ is dominated by the element ‘Metro’ which is identical to the opposition mark. According to the applicant, the further element ‘RED’ lacks any distinctiveness and will thus be disregarded by the consumer.


title: Case T-29/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  8 December 2005  — Castellblanch v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community trade mark containing the word element  CRISTAL CASTELLBLANCH  — Earlier national word mark CRISTAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b), Article 15(2)(a) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/28

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 2005 — Castellblanch v OHIM
   (Case T-29/04) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community trade mark containing the word element ‘CRISTAL CASTELLBLANCH’ - Earlier national word mark CRISTAL - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b), Article 15(2)(a) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 48/52)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Castellblanch, SA (Sant Sadurni d'Anoia, Spain) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu, É. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent)

      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Champagne Louis Roederer SA (Reims, France) (represented by: P. Cousin, lawyer)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2003 (Case R 37/2000-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Castellblanch, SA and Champagne Louis Roederer SA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20. 03. 2004.


title: Case T-218/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara Maria ORO) (Community mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark Cuétara Maria ORO — Earlier Community and national figurative marks ORO — Partial refusal of registration — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — Nutrexpa v OHIM — Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property (Cuétara Maria ORO)
   (Case T-218/13) (1)

   ((Community mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Cuétara Maria ORO - Earlier Community and national figurative marks ORO - Partial refusal of registration - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 221/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Nutrexpa, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Grau Mora, M. Ferrándiz Avendaño and Y. Sastre Canet, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl (Milan, Italy) (represented by: A Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli and G. Petrocchi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 February 2013 (case R 2455/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Kraft Foods Italia Intellectual Property Srl and Nutrexpa, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Disjoins Case T-218/13 from Case T-217/13 for the purpose of the judgment;

               2.

               Dismisses the action;

               3.

               Orders Nutrexpa, SL to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/28

         Removal from the Register of Case T-325/03 (1)

   (2004/C 239/64)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 6 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-325/03, E-Sim Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.


title: Case C-125/15 P: Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 18 December 2015 — Court of Justice of the European Union v Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Groupe Gascogne SA, supported by: European Commission

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/11

         Order of the Vice-President of the Court of 18 December 2015 — Court of Justice of the European Union v Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Groupe Gascogne SA, supported by: European Commission
   (Case C-125/15 P) (1)

   (2016/C 078/14)
   Language of the case: French
   The Vice-President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 11.5.2015.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 1999 in Case T-311/97, Pescados Congelados Jogamar, SL v Commission of the European Communities (Action for declaration of failure to act - Inadmissibility)

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


title: Case T-121/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2009 — Sellafield v Commission

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/69

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 November 2009 — Sellafield v Commission
   (Case T-121/06) (1)

   2010/C 24/123

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 May 2000 in Case C-45/99: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 94/33/EC)

text:
12.8.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 233/7
voor het Bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in            Bellanger and C. Bergeot) — application for a declaration that,
the proceedings pending before that court between KVS                       by failing within the prescribed period to adopt, alternatively
International BV and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer                    to communicate to the Commission, the laws, regulations and
en Visserij — on the interpretation of Article 3 of Council                 administrative measures necessary in order to comply with
Directive 88/407/EEC of 14 June 1988 laying down the animal                 Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection
health requirements applicable to intra-Community trade in                  of young people at work (OJ 1994 L 216 p. 12), the French
and imports of deep-frozen semen of domestic animals of the                 Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty
bovine species (OJ 1988 L 194, p. 10) and paragraph 1(b) of                 and under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber),
Chapter I of Annex B to the same directive, both in its original            composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
version and as amended by Council Directive 93/60/EEC of                    P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Sag-
30 June 1993 amending Directive 88/407/EEC and extending                    gio, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judg-
it to cover fresh bovine semen (OJ 1993 L 186, p. 28), and the              ment on 18 May 2000, in which it:
validity of the latter directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur), President of the First                 1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,                           the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary in
P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet,                            order to comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June
Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,                   1994 on the protection of young people at work, the French
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 18 May 2000, in                        Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty
which it has ruled:                                                               and under that directive;
Article 3(b) of Council Directive 88/407/EEC of 14 June 1988                2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
laying down the animal health requirements applicable to intra-
Community trade in and imports of deep-frozen semen of domestic
                                                                            (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
animals of the bovine species, read in conjunction with paragraph 1(b)
of Chapter 1 of Annex B to that directive, in its original version and
as amended by Council Directive 93/60/EEC of 30 June 1993
amending Directive 88/407/EEC and extending it to cover fresh
bovine semen, must be interpreted as meaning that semen from a
bull which, before its admission to an approved semen collection
centre, belonged to a herd which was not officially brucellosis free is
precluded from intra-Community trade, if only on account of the                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
change in the health status of the herd in the period during which the
animal was kept in that herd.                                                                         of 23 May 2000
(1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.                                                 in Case C-104/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Oberster Gerichtshof): Johann Buchner and Others v
                                                                                Sozialversicherungsanstalt der Bauern (1)
                                                                            (Directive 79/7/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women
                                                                            in matters of social security — Early old-age pension on
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      account of incapacity for work — Pensionable age different
                                                                                according to sex)
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (2000/C 233/14)
                          of 18 May 2000
in Case C-45/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                           (Language of the case: German)
                    ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive                                in the European Court Reports)
                             94/33/EC)
                                                                            In Case C-104/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                          (2000/C 233/13)
                                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberster
                                                                            Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proce-
                    (Language of the case: French)                          edings pending before that court between Johann Buchner and
                                                                            Others and Sozialversicherungsanstalt der Bauern — on the
                                                                            interpretation of Article 7 of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the
                   in the European Court Reports)                           principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of
                                                                            social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) — the Court, composed
In Case C-45/99: Commission of the European Communities                     of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward and
(Agent: D. Gouloussis) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-                L. Sevón, (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gul-


title: Judgment of the Court of 15 November 2013 in Case E-10/13 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle for equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation)

text:
               27.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 88/10

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   of 15 November 2013
   in Case E-10/13
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle for equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation)
   2014/C 88/07
   In Case E-10/13, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt measures necessary to correctly implement into its national legislation the provisions of Article 2(1)(a)-(d) and Article 2(2)(a)-(b) of the Act referred to at point 21b of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle for equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 15 November 2013, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               declares that, by failing within the time limit prescribed to adopt the measures necessary to correctly implement into its national legislation Article 2(1)(a)-(d) and Article 2(2)(a)-(b) of the Act referred to at point 21b of Annex XVIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle for equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act;

               2.

               orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Joined Cases C-18/10 and C-37/10: Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Agrargenossenschaft Münchehof e.G. (C-18/10), Landwirtschaftliches Unternehmen e.G. Sondershausen (C-37/10) v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/8

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Berlin — Germany) — Agrargenossenschaft Münchehof e.G. (C-18/10), Landwirtschaftliches Unternehmen e.G. Sondershausen (C-37/10) v BVVG Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH
   (Joined Cases C-18/10 and C-37/10) (1)

   2011/C 173/17
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.

      OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case C-517/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Afton Chemical Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Directive 92/81/EEC — Excise duty on mineral oils — Article 2(2) and (3) and Article 8(1)(a) — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 2(2), (3) and (4)(b) — Scope — Fuel additives which are mineral oils or energy products but are not used as motor fuel — National taxation regime)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/20

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Afton Chemical Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-517/07) (1)

   (Directive 92/81/EEC - Excise duty on mineral oils - Article 2(2) and (3) and Article 8(1)(a) - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 2(2), (3) and (4)(b) - Scope - Fuel additives which are mineral oils or energy products but are not used as motor fuel - National taxation regime)
   (2009/C 44/33)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Afton Chemical Limited

      Respondents: Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Articles 2(3) and 8(1) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12), Articles 2(3) and 4(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) and Article 3 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — Mineral oils added to fuel for purposes other than increasing the power of the vehicle but not intended to be sold or used as fuel — To be taxed as motor fuel?
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 2(3) and Article 8(1) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, as regards the period ending on 31 December 2003, and Article 2(3) and (4) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as regards the period from 1 January to 31 October 2004, are to be interpreted as meaning that fuel additives, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which are ‘mineral oils’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 92/81 or ‘energy products’ within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 2003/96, but which are not intended for use, offered for sale or used as motor fuel, must be made subject to the taxation regime imposed by those directives.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.