title: Joined Cases C-124/08 and C-125/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Gilbert Snauwaert, Algemeen Expeditiebedrijf Zeebrugge BVBA, Coldstar NV, Dirk Vlaeminck, Jeroen Den Haerynck, Ann De Wintere (C-124/08), Géry Deschaumes (C-125/08) v Belgische Staat (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Customs debt — Amount of duty — Communication to the debtor — Act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 July 2009 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Gilbert Snauwaert, Algemeen Expeditiebedrijf Zeebrugge BVBA, Coldstar NV, Dirk Vlaeminck, Jeroen Den Haerynck, Ann De Wintere (C-124/08), Géry Deschaumes (C-125/08) v Belgische Staat
   (Joined Cases C-124/08 and C-125/08) (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Customs debt - Amount of duty - Communication to the debtor - Act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings)
   2009/C 220/14
   Language of the cases: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Gilbert Snauwaert, Algemeen Expeditiebedrijf Zeebrugge BVBA, Coldstar NV, Dirk Vlaeminck, Jeroen Den Haerynck, Ann De Wintere (C124/08), Géry Deschaumes (C-125/08)

      Respondent: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 221(1) and (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (version in force in 1992) (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — Post-clearance recovery of import or export duties — Whether or not the amount of the duty owed must be entered in the accounts before being communicated to the debtor — Limitation period — Customs fraud — Finding of joint and several liability

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 221(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of import or export duty due may be validly communicated to the debtor by the customs authorities, in accordance with appropriate procedures, only if the amount of that duty has been entered in the accounts beforehand by those authorities.

               2.

               Article 221(3) of Regulation No 2913/92 must be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities may, after the expiry of the period of three years from the date on which the customs debt was incurred, validly communicate to the debtor the amount of duty legally due, where the exact amount of that duty could not be determined by those authorities as a result of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. That includes cases where the debtor has not committed that act.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 07.06.2008.


title: Action brought on 31 December 1997 by Aduanas Pujol Rubio, SA, and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-614/97)

text:
C 94/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.3.98
Instance of the European Communities on 29 December                 Action brought on 31 December 1997 by Aduanas Pujol
1997 by Cordis Obst und Gemüse Grosshandel GmbH,                    Rubio, SA, and Others against the Commission of the
Ostrau, Federal Republic of Germany, represented by, and                               European Communities
having an address for service at the offices of, Gert Meier,
                                                                                (Case T-614/97)
Rechtsanwalt, 10 Jakordenstrasse, Cologne.
                                                                                (98/C 94/72)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
Ð annul, on the grounds of infringement of the Treaty
     and misuse of powers, the decision of the Commission           An action against the Commission of the European
     of 24 October 1997 on the adoption of transitional             Communities was brought before the Court of First
     measures in favour of Cordis Obst und Gemüse                   Instance of the European Communities on 31 December
     Grosshandel GmbH under the common organisation                 1997 by Aduanas Pujol Rubio SA and other Spanish
     of the market in bananas,                                      customs agents, represented by Santiago MunÄoz Machado,
                                                                    of the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Amo QuinÄones,
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            2 Rue Gabriel Lipmann.
                                                                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay compensation to the
The applicant was founded in November 1990 and is a                      applicants, by way of non-contractual liability, for the
wholesale fruit business which operates in Saxony, thus in               damage alleged in the present application to the extent
the area of the former German Democratic Republic. On                    to which the Spanish State has not been found liable
its incorporation it absorbed parts of the former East                   by the national courts,
German farmer's cooperative in order to give the workers
of that concern the opportunity of continued employment.
In July 1991 a banana-ripening plant with an annual
                                                                    Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
capacity of 11 960 tonnes began operating. The contested
decision rejected the request made by the applicant in
accordance with Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404/
93 for the grant of additional ripening licences amounting          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
to at least 5 000 tonnes as a transitional measure to
compensate for hardship which was not the applicant's
fault and had come about as a result of the rules on                The applicants state that the claim for damages which is
reference periods in Article 19(2) of the Regulation.               the subject matter of the present action does not arise
                                                                    from the loss of business as a result of the gradual
                                                                    removal of customs posts but rather from the actual costs
                                                                    of conversion (essentially dismissals) which they have had
In the applicant's view, the Community institutions were
                                                                    to incur as a result of the total and sudden abolition of
required in accordance with the principle of equal
                                                                    customs formalities between Member States of the
treatment to take account of the different starting
                                                                    Community. The applicants acknowledge that such
positions of old and new businesses. The Council was
                                                                    abolition of customs posts within the Community in view
already obliged to implement such special arrangements in
                                                                    of the creation of the internal market had already been
favour of the new businesses in the new German Länder.
                                                                    announced in Article 2 of the Treaty of Rome. None the
However, following the judgment of the Court of Justice
                                                                    less, the applicants point out that the steps provided for its
of the European Communities in Case C-280/93 (1) which
                                                                    creation were restricted to the abolition of customs duties,
accords the Council a wide legislative discretion, it is to be
                                                                    not of the customs posts themselves. The latter arises
assumed that the Council could leave it to the
                                                                    directly from Article 13 of the Single European Act.
Commission to arrange for appropriate compensation for
                                                                    Nevertheless, implementation of the mandate contained in
the special sacrifices required of the new businesses. That
                                                                    that provision was subject to the condition that it be
is all the more true inasmuch as, by Article 30 of
                                                                    gradual, a condition breached by the Community
Regulation (EEC) No 404/93, the Commission was given
                                                                    legislature. This constitutes the first plea alleging
a broad framework within which to act. By failing, in
                                                                    unlawfulness.
breach of the principle of equal treatment, to make full
use of that framework, the Commission misused its
powers and infringed the Treaty.
                                                                    The applicants seek a finding of non-contractual liability
                                                                    against the Community authorities for the legislation
(1) Case C-280/93 Germany v. Council [1994] ECR I-4973.             which brought into force simultaneously on 1 January
                                                                    1993 provisions abolishing customs formalities without
                                                                    providing for proper transitional measures for the
                                                                    retraining of customs agents.
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 94/29
Further, the applicants allege, in support of their claims,        to be regarded as inappropriate, because they are limited
that the principles of proportionality, of the protection of       to a period of one year, and because the Regulation has no
legitimate expectations, fairness and proportionality have         binding effect on the Member States. Moreover, the action
been breached and that the right to property and freedom           envisaged by the Community was centred only on priority
to provide a service have been disregarded.                        regions. The applicants state in that connection that since
                                                                   the damage was definitive as at 1 January 1993, the date
                                                                   of publication of Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 rendered
                                                                   ineffective the few measures that were envisaged therein,
                                                                   since the undertakings were obliged to take the economic
                                                                   measures necessary, without receiving support, on that
Actions brought on 31 December 1997 by Alberny FreÁres             same date in order to limit their losses. The measures
and Others against Commission of the European                      proposed, whatever they might be, could be taken only a
     Communities and Council of the European Union                 long time after the requisite adoption of the restructuring
                                                                   measures.
            (Joined Cases T-615/97 to T-618/97)
                        (98/C 94/73)                               The applicants allege breach, so far as they are concerned,
                                                                   of the principle of the observance of acquired rights, the
                (Language of the case: French)                     principle of legal certainty, the principle of the protection
                                                                   of legitimate expectations and the principle of non-
Actions against the Commission of the European                     discrimination.
Communities and the Council of the European Union
were brought before the Court of First Instance on                 The applicants state in particular in that connection that
31 December 1997 by Alberny FreÁres and Others,                    no initiative taken by the undertakings before 31 December
established in France, represented by Jean-FrancËois               1992 taking account of the disappearance of intra-
Bournilhas, of the Paris Bar, and Mark Clough, Solicitor,          Community customs traffic on 1 January 1993, in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   particular the laying off of employees under the special
chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                              social plan, could give effect to a regulation which was
                                                                   not to become known until 31 December 1992, that is to
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance              say at the very time at which the harm accrued. Moreover,
should:                                                            Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 treats in the same way
                                                                   situations which differ considerably from one Member
Ð declare the defendants liable, for the purposes of the           State to another. Finally, that Regulation is discriminatory
    second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty for the          as between those who took such action before January
    damage caused to their businesses as approved                  1993 and those who took it after its publication.
    customs agents as a result of the provisions adopted
    by the Council to ensure the free movement of goods            In the alternative, the applicants allege strict liability on
    throughout the internal market as from 1 January               the part of the Community, deriving from its failure to
    1993, without taking the measures necessary to                 ensure equal treatment in relation to charges imposed by
    safeguard the applicants' interests and as a result of         the public authorities. In their opinion, the intervention of
    the Commission's failure to propose and the Council's          the Community authorities can be deemed to constitute an
    failure to adopt the measures necessary legitimately to        expropriation, since the situation in which they find
    safeguard their rights,                                        themselves is worse than that which would derive from
                                                                   the economic risks associated with the economic sector
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to                    concerned.
    compensate each of the applicants for the said
    damage, and to pay interest at the rate of 8 % per             (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992
    annum as from 1 January 1993,                                      on measures to adapt the profession of customs agent to the
                                                                       internal market (OJ L 394, 31.12.1992, p. 1).
Ð order the defendants jointly and severally to pay the
    costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicants, which are approved French customs                  Actions brought on 24 December 1997 by SPRL NoeÈl
agents, criticise the Community institutions for failing to        Boone and Others against Commission of the European
take adequate measures to forestall the harm accruing to                                     Communities
them as a result of completion of the internal market                           (Joined Cases T-620/97 to T-627/97)
established by the Single European Act.
                                                                                (98/C 94/74)
The applicants claim that the only reaction on the part of
the Community authorities to the situation in which they                            (Language of the case: French)
found themselves is contained in Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3904/92 of 17 December 1992 (1). However,                 Actions against the Commission of the European
the measures with which that Regulation is concerned are           Communities were brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-632/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 December 2013 — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 3 December 2013 — Skatteverket v Hilkka Hirvonen
   (Case C-632/13)
   2014/C 31/09
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteverket

      Defendant: Hilkka Hirvonen

      Question referred

   Does Article 45 TFEU preclude provisions in a Member State’s legislation which mean that a person resident in another Member State — who receives all or almost all his income from the first Member State — can choose between two entirely different systems of taxation, that is to say, either to be taxed at source at a lower tax rate but without the right to such tax relief as is applicable under the ordinary income tax system, or to be taxed on his income under the latter system and thus be able to benefit from the tax relief in question?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 November 2000 in Case C-282/98 P: Enso Española SA v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Statement of reasons — Principle of equal treatment — Costs)

text:
10.2.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 45/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
                                                                             Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, is to be
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     interpreted as not applying to workers of a construction company
                                                                             established in one Member State who are posted to carry out
                       of 9 November 2000                                    construction work in the territory of another Member State in which,
                                                                             apart from purely internal management activities, that undertaking
in Case C-404/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling                         performs all its activities. In accordance with Article 13(2)(a) of
from the Bundesgerichtshof): Josef Plum v Allgemeine                         Regulation No 1408/71, those workers are subject to the social
 Ortskrankenkasse Rheinland, Regionaldirektion Köln (1)                      security legislation of the Member State in whose territory they
                                                                             actually work.
(Social security for migrant workers — Determination of the
legislation applicable — Workers posted to another Member                    (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.
                               State)
                          (2001/C 45/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                       (Fifth Chamber)
In Case C-404/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                       of 16 November 2000
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in             in Case C-282/98 P: Enso Española SA v Commission of
the proceedings pending before that court between Josef Plum                                   the European Communities (1)
and Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Rheinland, Regionaldirek-
tion Köln — on the interpretation of Articles 13(2)(a) and                   (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of                    (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Statement of reasons —
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to                             Principle of equal treatment — Costs)
employed persons, to selfemployed persons and to members
of their families moving within the Community, as amended                                                (2001/C 45/02)
and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6) — the Court (Sixth
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-                                      (Language of the Case: Spanish)
er, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and
F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 November 2000, in                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
which it has ruled:                                                                              in the European Court Reports)
Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of            In Case C-282/98 P, Enso Española SA, established in Cas-
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to                tellbisbal, Spain, represented by A. Creus Carreras, of the
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their           Barcelona Bar, and E. Contreras Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar,
 ---pagebreak--- C 45/2                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.2.2001
with an address for service in Brussels at the Chambers of               Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
Cuatrecasas, Avenue d’Auderghem, 78, 1040 Brussels —                     D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo,
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance               Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended                     on 16 November 2000 in which it:
Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-348/94 Enso
Española v Commission [1998] ECR 11-1875, seeking to have               1.    Dismisses the appeal;
that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being Commission of the European Communities, represented                2.    Orders Mo och Domsjö AB to pay the costs.
by R. Lyal and E. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents — the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President
                                                                         (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward,
P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November
2000 in which it:
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
2.    Orders Enso Española SA to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
                                                                                of 16 November 2000
                                                                         in Case C-286/98 P: Stora Kopparbergs BergsIags AB v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                         (Appeal — Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty
                                                                         (now Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Statement of reasons —
                                                                                Liability for the infringement)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (2001/C 45/04)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                     of 16 November 2000
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in Case C-283/98 P: Mo och Domsjö AB v Commission of                                         in the European Court Reports)
                the European Communities (1)
                                                                         In Case C-286/98 P, Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags AB, estab-
(Appeal Competition — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now                lished in Falun (Sweden), represented by A. Riesenkampff and
Article 81(1) EC) — Fines — Determination of the amount                  S. Lehr, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am Main, with an address for
 — Statement of reasons — Power of unlimited jurisdiction)               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Faltz, 6 Rue
                                                                         Heinrich Heine — appeal against the judgment of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
                         (2001/C 45/03)                                  Extended Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-354/94
                                                                         Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v Commission [1998] ECR
                                                                         II-2111, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
                  (Language of the Case: English)                        party to the proceedings being Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by J. Currall and R. Lyal, of its Legal
                                                                         Service, acting as Agents — the Court (Fifth Chamber)
In Case C-283/98 P, Mo och Domsjö AB, established at                     composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,
Örnsköldsvik, Sweden, represented by A. Woodgate and                    M. Wathelet (Rapporteur); D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and
M. Smith, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg          L. Sevón, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass,
at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias                Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 November 2000 in
Hardt — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First                which it:
Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber,
Extended Composition) of 14 May 1998 in Case T-352/94 Mo                 1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 May
och Domsjö v Commission [1998] ECR II-1989, seeking to                         1998 in Case T-354/94 Stora Kopparbergs Bergslags v
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings               Commission in so far as it attributes to Stora Kopparbergs
being Commission of the European Communities, represented                      Bergslags AB responsibility for the infringements committed by
by R. Lyal, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by                 Feldmühle and Papeteries Beghin-Corbehem prior to September
J. Flynn — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La                       1990;


title: Case T-522/13: Action brought on 26 September 2013 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/20

         Action brought on 26 September 2013 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO ESTATE)
   (Case T-522/13)
   2013/C 352/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kenzo, SA (Paris, France)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 July 2013 given in Case R 1363/2012-2;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KENZO ESTATE’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 30, 31, 35, 41 and 43 — International Registration No W 1 016 724

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘KENZO’ for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark No 720 706

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR.


title: Case T-525/09: Action brought on 28 December 2009 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/31

         Action brought on 28 December 2009 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)
   (Case T-525/09)
   2010/C 80/52
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: R. Kaase and J.-C. Plate, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Metronia, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2009 in case R 1315/2006-1, as far as the appeal has been dismissed on the grounds that it does not comply with Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009); and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those incurred in the opposition and appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘METRONIA’, for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘METRO’, for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application;

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal, rejected the opposition and, as a result, allowed the Community trade mark application to proceed in respect of all goods and services

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.


title: Case C-343/13: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria — Portugal) — Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA v Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rules on mergers of public limited liability companies — Directive 78/855/EEC — Merger by acquisition — Article 19 — Effects — Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company — Infringement by the company being acquired prior to its acquisition — Administrative decision confirming infringement post-acquisition — National law — Transfer of the acquired company’s liability for administrative offences — Lawfulness)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria — Portugal) — Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA v Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT)
   (Case C-343/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Rules on mergers of public limited liability companies - Directive 78/855/EEC - Merger by acquisition - Article 19 - Effects - Transfer of all the assets and liabilities of the company being acquired to the acquiring company - Infringement by the company being acquired prior to its acquisition - Administrative decision confirming infringement post-acquisition - National law - Transfer of the acquired company’s liability for administrative offences - Lawfulness))
   (2015/C 138/06)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal do Trabalho de Leiria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Modelo Continente Hipermercados SA

      Defendant: Autoridade para as Condições de Trabalho — Centro Local do Lis (ACT)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 19(1) of Third Council Directive 78/855/EEC of 9 October 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty concerning mergers of public limited liability companies, as amended by Directive 2009/109/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a ‘merger by acquisition’ in Article 3(1) of the directive results in the transfer to the acquiring company of the obligation to pay a fine imposed by final decision adopted after the merger by acquisition for infringements of employment law committed by the acquired company prior to that merger.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Guide to candidates taking part in an open competition

text:
31.7.2002             EN                            Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 182 A/1
                                                                       III
                                                                    (Notices)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                   OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                            GUIDE TO CANDIDATES TAKING PART IN AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                               (2002/C 182 A/01)
              A.    INTRODUCTION
              B.    NOTICE OF COMPETITITION AND APPLICATION FORM
                    1. General conditions
                    2. Knowledge of languages
                    3. Education and diplomas
                    4. Experience
                    5. Signing of application form
                    6. Submission of application form and supporting documents
              C.    COMPETITION PROCEDURE
                    1. Organisation
                    2. General procedure
                    3. Procedure after submission of applications
                    4. Written tests
                    5. Oral test
                    6. Reserve list
              D.    CAREER PROGRESSION AND WORKING CONDITIONS
                    1. Categories of post
                    2. Remuneration and other special conditions
                      A.   INTRODUCTION                                         If you decide to enter, you should read this guide very
                                                                                carefully as it tells you:
1.   Open competitions for the recruitment of officials of the
     European Union are organised in accordance with the
     Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communi-                    —    how to complete the application form correctly and
     ties. Before a competition is held, a notice of competition                     what other documentation you need to provide,
     is published in the Official Journal of the European Communi-
     ties.                                                                      —    how competitions are organised,
2.   Only applications submitted for a special competition                      —    what kinds of job are available and what working
     will be accepted.                                                               conditions are like in the institutions of the European
                                                                                Union.
3.   This copy of the Official Journal includes the notice of
     competition and the application form as well as this
     guide for candidates taking part in an open competition                    However, this guide is for information only. The only
     for a post at the Court of Justice of the European                         text binding on the selection board in the course of its
     Communities.                                                               proceedings is the notice of competition.
 ---pagebreak--- C 182 A/2              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    31.7.2002
    B.     NOTICE OF COMPETITION AND APPLICATION FORM                    2.   Knowledge of languages
Please read this carefully before completing your appli-                      (a) All candidates for a post in an institution of the
cation form.                                                                      European Union must have a thorough knowledge
                                                                                of one of the official languages of the European
                                                                                Union (Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French,
                                                                                German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and
                                                                                Swedish) and a satisfactory knowledge of a second
1.     General conditions                                                         official language to the extent necessary for the
                                                                                performance of the duties attaching to the post in
       (a)  You must read the competition notice carefully so                     question.
            as to make absolutely sure that you fulfil the basic
            conditions for admission to the competition, in                       Candidates take the written tests in their main
            particular those relating to:                                         language (this may or may not be their mother
                                                                                tongue). If the competition notice so provides, they
            —     nationality (1),                                                may have to take written tests in the second language
                                                                                of their choice.
            —     age,
                                                                              (b) Some competitions, such as those for lawyer-lingu-
                                                                                ists, interpreters and secretaries, are organised for
            —     education, and
                                                                                candidates of a particular language.
            —     any experience required.                                        It is very difficult for candidates, even those who
                                                                                consider themselves bilingual, to succeed in a com-
            The selection board has to take those conditions                      petition which is not in their main language.
            into account when deciding whether or not candi-
            dates are to be admitted to the competition.                          Candidates are therefore advised in such cases to
                                                                                decide which is their main language and to apply
       (b) Candidates must use the application form for the                       only for competitions held in that language.
            appropriate competition contained in the Official
            Journal. Only the form bearing the number of the
            competition may be used. Since this is the basic
            document used by selection boards when they
                                                                         3.   Education and diplomas
            decide which candidates to admit to the competition,
            it needs to be filled in extremely carefully.
                                                                              (a) As the notice of competition published in the
            Candidates are also asked to enclosed their curricu-                  Official Journal is addressed to nationals of the
            lum vitae supplementing or providing further details                  15 Member States, it has to cover all the education
            of the information given in the application form.                     systems at the various levels and cannot therefore
                                                                                be geared to the subtleties of each individual system.
       (c)  The name under which you apply must be used in all
            correspondence in connection with the competition                 (b) Candidates educated in non-member countries
            even if you subsequently change your marital status.                  should provide a certificate of national equivalence,
                                                                                issued by the Member State of which they are
       (d) Candidates are urged to provide their permanent                        nationals, for diplomas and certificates obtained
            address where they can be contacted at any time                       outside the European Union to enable the selection
            during the duration of the procedure. They must                       board to assess the level of their studies.
            notify the recruitment section without delay of
            any change of address in order to ensure the safe                 (c) Educational qualifications will be checked and as-
            arrival of communications concerning the compe-                       sessed by the selection board and, where necessary,
            tition.                                                               by persons with an expert knowledge of your
                                                                                country’s education system.
       (e)  Candidates seeking exemption from the age limit
            must fill in the appropriate part of the application                  It is very important that you give the precise dates
            form and enclose supporting documents.                                and details of the different stages and levels of your
                                                                                education on your application form.
                                                                                In the case of technical or vocational training and
(1) The Member States of the European Union are: Austria, Belgium,                specialist or refresher training, you should specify
    Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxem-             whether the course was full-time or part-time or an
    bourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United                evening course, what subjects were covered and
    Kingdom.                                                                      how long the course lasted.
 ---pagebreak--- 31.7.2002           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 182 A/3
     (d) Photocopies of the diplomas or certificates                       (e)    Photocopies of statements from previous
         required for admission to the competition must                           employers and from your present employer
         be enclosed with your application form.                                  confirming your experience must be enclosed
                                                                                with your application form.
         Candidates who fail to submit copies of their
         diplomas or certificates will not be admitted to                         If you are unable to provide a statement from
         the competition.                                                         your present employer, you may send a photo-
                                                                                copy of your contract or of your first and your
                                                                                latest payslips instead.
                                                                                Candidates who fail to provide the necessary
                                                                                supporting documents in respect of their pro-
4.   Experience                                                                   fessional experience will not be admitted to the
                                                                                competition.
     (a) A minimum number of years’ experience is required
         for many competitions. This part of the application
         form should be filled in extremely carefully.
                                                                      5.   Signing of application form
     (b) You should specify the exact date when you took up
         or left a post, describe your duties and the kind of
         work involved and give precise details of your                    It is compulsory to sign the completed application form.
         responsibilities and of your salary.                              In signing you are declaring on your honour that the
                                                                           information provided is true and complete, and clearly
                                                                           indicating your intention to take part in the competition.
         Simply to say ‘manager’ or ‘office worker’ is not
         sufficient and may result in exclusion from the
         competition on the grounds that there is no evidence
         that you have the required experience.                            An unsigned application will be considered void and
                                                                           will be rejected without being forwarded to the
                                                                           selection board.
         It is in your interest to provide full details of the
         posts your have held. If necessary, you should attach
         additional sheets to your application.
                                                                      6.   Submission of application form and supporting docu-
     (c) Where professional experience is specified in the                 ments
         notice of competition, it is counted only from
         the time the candidate obtained the certificate or
         diploma required for admission to the competition.                (a)    Each applicant’s file consists of the official appli-
                                                                                cation form, which must be signed, together with
         Any experience gained prior to this will not be                          supporting documents.
         counted by the selection board.
                                                                           (b) The official application form, together with photo-
         By providing clear and correct details of your                           copies of supporting documents, must be sent,
         experience, you place the selection board in the best                    preferably by registered post, by the deadline speci-
         possible position to decide whether or not to admit                      fied in the notice of competition, as evidenced by
         you to the competition.                                                  the postmark.
                                                                                Application forms and photocopies of support-
     (d) Since further training courses leading to a certificate                  ing documents lodged after the deadline will
         or diploma and duly attested periods of specialist or                    be rejected without being forwarded to the
         refresher training count as professional experience,                     selection board.
         provided that they are relevant to the duties specified
         in the notice of competition, full supporting docu-
         mentation must be provided.                                       (c)    Candidates may not refer to documents, application
                                                                                forms or information sheets submitted in connec-
         The exact dates (day, month, year) when each period                      tion with previous recruitment procedures.
         began and ended must be specified.
                                                                           (d) Documents enclosed with the application form will
         Without this information, the selection board will                       not be returned. Candidates are recommended to
         be unable to determine how much experience to                            send copies of their certificates and diplomas and of
         credit you with.                                                         documents relating to their professional experience.
 ---pagebreak--- C 182 A/4             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          31.7.2002
               C.    COMPETITION PROCEDURE                                    (c)   the proceedings of the selection board are secret;
                                                                                candidates are not entitled to contact it or to see
                                                                                their papers after they have been marked;
1.  Organisation                                                              (d) the appointing authority draws up a list of candi-
                                                                                dates who satisfy the general conditions laid down
    (a)   In the case of competitions run by the Court                              in the Staff Regulations (1) and have submitted their
          of Justice, candidates will be dealing throughout                         application in time, and sends it to the selection
          exclusively with the Recruitment Section of the                           board with the candidates’ files;
          Personnel Division of the Court of Justice.
                                                                              (e)   after considering the files, the selection board draws
    (b) All correspondence should be sent to the following                          up a list of candidates who meet the conditions set
          address:                                                                  out in the notice of competition:
            Court of Justice of the European Communities                            —     for competitions based on tests, all candidates
                  Personnel Division — Recruitment                                        on the list are admitted to the tests,
                          L-2925 Luxembourg
                            Tel. (352) 43 03-1                                      —     for competitions based on qualifications and
                          Fax (352) 43 03-27 10                                           tests, the selection board first establishes the
                                                                                criteria on the basis of which it will assess the
    (c)   The Court of Justice applies a policy of equal                                  candidates’ qualifications and then decides on
          opportunity and of selection according to merit by                              the basis of the list, after examining the qualifi-
          means of fair competitions open to all. All such                                cations, which candidates are to be admitted to
          steps as shall be considered reasonable will be taken                           the tests,
          to ensure that handicapped persons can take part in
          competitions on an equal footing with the other                           —     for competitions based on qualifications, the
          candidates.                                                                     selection board establishes the criteria on which
                                                                                it will examine the qualifications of candidates
          In accordance with the code of good conduct in                                  on the list, gives marks for the qualifications
          force at the Court of Justice, handicapped persons                              and draws up a list of suitable candidates in
          are requested to specify, in their application form,                            order of merit.
          the equipment they consider necessary for their
          participation in the tests. Everything will be done to
          ensure that they are treated equally with the other           3.    Procedure after the submission of applications
          candidates and all reasonable arrangements request-
          ed by them will be made.                                            (a)   The safe arrival of your application form will
                                                                                be acknowledged by the Personnel Division. This
                                                                                acknowledgement does not necessarily mean that
                                                                                you will be admitted to the competition.
2.  General procedure
                                                                              (b) When it has examined all the application forms, the
                                                                                selection board will inform candidates by letter
    The Staff Regulations provide for three different types of
                                                                                whether or not they have been admitted to the
    competition.
                                                                                competition.
    As a general rule, staff are recruited to the Court of Justice            (c)   In the letter stating that they have been admitted to
    by means of competitions based on qualifications and                            the competition, candidates will be asked to attend
    tests. In exceptional cases, competitions may be based on                       the tests; the date and the venue for the tests will be
    qualifications only.                                                            specified in the letter.
                                                                              (d) Candidates not admitted to the tests will be told
    The competition procedure is as follows:                                        why.
    (a)   candidates must complete and sign the official                            Candidates who feel that a mistake has been made
          application form. It is essential that they provide                       regarding eligibility have 15 days from the date
          copies of supporting documents and any necessary                          postmarked on the letter stating that they have been
          additional information by the deadline specified in                       excluded from the competition in which to ask for
          the notice of competition;                                                their application to be reconsidered.
    (b) a selection board is set up for each competition; it
                                                                        (1) In order to qualify for appointment as an official in an institution
          consists of members designated by the appointing                  of the European Union, you must be a national of one of
          authority and by the Staff Committee; since selection             the Member States (unless the appointing authority makes an
          board members are not released from their usual                   exception in your favour) and enjoy your full rights as a citizen.
          duties, a certain amount of time will necessarily                 You must also have fulfilled any obligations imposed by the laws
          elapse before the names of candidates admitted to                 concerning military service and meet the character requirements
          the tests and the results of the tests are known;                 for the duties involved.
 ---pagebreak--- 31.7.2002            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 182 A/5
         The selection board will then reconsider the appli-           5.   Oral test
         cation and decide whether the complaint is justified.
                                                                            (a) Candidates are given details of the date, time and
     (e) Most applications are made by candidates who have                      place of the oral test in the letter inviting them to
         omitted to enclose supporting documents relating to                    attend. Oral tests are normally held in Luxembourg.
         their professional experience or who have enclosed                     Candidates will be given a contribution towards their
         insufficiently detailed evidence to enable the selec-                  travelling and subsistence expenses as determined by
         tion board to assess how much, what kind or what                       the rules applicable to the Court.
         level of experience they possess. A curriculum vitae
         is not regarded as a supporting document.                          (b) Most of the interview will be conducted in the
                                                                                candidate’s main language and simultaneous
     (f) The fact that a candidate has not been admitted to a                   interpretation is available if necessary.
         given competition does not prevent his candidature
         from being taken into consideration for another.                       The purpose of the oral test is to assess, first, the
                                                                                candidate’s professional knowledge and, secondly,
                                                                                his fitness to carry out in an institution of the
                                                                                European Union the duties attached to the category
                                                                                of post for which the competition was held.
4.   Written tests
                                                                            (c) During the test, the selection board will also assess
     (a) The organisation of the written tests depends on the                   knowledge of other official languages of the Euro-
         examination rooms available in the various Member                      pean Union.
         States. The place where candidates are invited to
         attend depends on their country of residence. Some-
         times, however, the tests are held only in Luxem-
         bourg or in some other convenient place.
                                                                       6.   Reserve list
     (b) Candidates invited to attend the written tests are                 (a) Once the selection board has completed its deliber-
         given full details of the date, time and place of the                  ations, it draws up a list of candidates deemed
         tests.                                                                 suitable for the posts to be filled. In accordance with
                                                                                the Staff Regulations every attempt is made to
     (c) A flat-rate contribution is made towards the travel-                   ensure that the number of candidates on the list
         ling expenses of candidates who have to travel                         exceeds the number of posts available.
         further than 300 kilometres (one way) to the
         examination centre. It is stressed that this is a flat-            (b) Candidates are informed by letter whether or not
         rate contribution and not full reimbursement of the                    they have been placed on the list of suitable
         travelling expenses.                                                   candidates.
     (d) The written tests will take place simultaneously for               (c) Candidates should note that inclusion on the
         all candidates at all the centres on the date indicated                reserve list does not necessarily lead to appoint-
         in the letter of invitation to attend. No exception to                 ment.
         this can be allowed.
                                                                                The list is known as the ‘reserve list’ because it is on
     (e) Irrespective of the type of diploma or certificate                     the basis of that list that successful candidates may
         required for admission to a given competition,                         be offered a post. Offers are made depending on
         candidates should note that the written and oral                       requirements and the availability of posts commen-
         tests presuppose a thorough knowledge of the                           surate with the qualifications of the successful
         subject(s) or area(s) described in the notice of                       candidates.
         competition (Section I. Nature of duties). The
         specialised knowledge needed to pass the tests                         However, in view of budgetary and operational
         should not therefore be underestimated.                                constraints, successful candidates should note that
                                                                                some time many elapse between being placed on
                                                                                the reserve list and receiving a definite job offer.
     (f) The test papers are not identified by the candidates’
         names and so there is no possibility of candidates’                    In addition, reserve lists may be used to take
         being identified by the examiners or the selection                     on temporary or auxiliary staff depending on the
         board.                                                                 budgetary funds available.
     (g) After the written and/or typewritten tests have been               (d) Successful candidates must also undergo a medical
         marked, the selection board draws up the list of                       examination as laid down in the Staff Regulations in
         candidates who are to be invited to attend for the                     order to make sure they are physically fit to perform
         oral test.                                                             the duties in question.
 ---pagebreak--- C 182 A/6                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      31.7.2002
      (e)   Before the successful candidates are appointed as                  (b) Category B: staff who have completed a course of
            probationary officials, a check will be carried out to                 advanced secondary education and obtained a final
            ensure that they:                                                      certificate or diploma, engaged in executive duties
                                                                                (comparable with those performed by an executive
            —     are nationals of one of the Member States of                     officer, administrative assistant, etc.).
                  the European Union and enjoy their full rights
                                                                                Category B runs from grade B 5 up to B 1.
                  as citizens,
                                                                                Category B breaks down as follows: B 5/B 4
            —     have fulfilled any obligations imposed on them                   (Administrative assistant), B 3/B 2 (Senior adminis-
                  by the laws concerning military service in the                   trative assistant), and B 1 (Principal administrative
                  country of which they are nationals,                             assistant).
            —     meet the character requirements for the duties               (c) Category C: staff who have completed a course of
                  involved,                                                        secondary education and/or a course of vocational
                                                                                education at secondary level and obtained a certifi-
            —     satisfy the requirements as to physical fitness                  cate or diploma, engaged in clerical duties (compar-
                  for the duties to be performed (medical examin-                  able with those performed by a secretary, filing
                  ation),                                                          clerk, technician, etc.).
                                                                                Category C runs from grade C 5 up to C 1.
            —     have produced the originals of their diplomas
                  or certificates.                                                 Category C breaks down as follows: C 5/C 4 (Clerical
                                                                                assistant, Typist), C 3/C 2 (Clerical officer, Secretary/
                                                                                typist), and C 1 (Executive secretary, Principal sec-
                                                                                retary, Principal clerical officer).
   D.     CAREER PROGRESSION AND WORKING CONDITIONS
                                                                               (d) Category D: staff who have completed the basic
                                                                                course of ‘compulsory’ and/or vocational education
                                                                                and obtained a certificate or diploma, engaged
1.    Categories of post                                                           in manual or service duties (messenger, driver,
                                                                                storeman, workshop staff, etc.).
      All posts in the institutions of the European Union,                         Category D runs from grade D 4 up to D 1.
      whether permanent or temporary, are classified as fol-
      lows.                                                                        Category D breaks down as follows: D 4 (Unskilled
                                                                                employee, Unskilled worker), D 3/D 2 (Skilled
      (a)   Category A: staff who have completed a course                          employee, Skilled worker), and D 1 (Head of Unit).
            of university education and obtained a degree or
            diploma, engaged in administrative and advisory                    (e) Officials other than those in grades A 1 and
            duties in areas of activity falling within the com-                    A 2 serve a probationary period, which must be
            petence of departments of the institutions.                            satisfactorily completed before they can be estab-
                                                                                lished.
            Category A runs from grade A 8 up to A 3 and is
            divided into four career brackets: A 8 (Assistant                      The period is nine months for officials in category A,
            Administrator), A 7/A 6 (Administrator), A 5/A 4                       the Language Service and category B, and six months
            (Principal Administrator) and A 3 (Head of Division).                  for other officials.
            Language service (LA): staff who have completed a
            course of university education and obtained a degree
            or diploma, working as translators and/or                     2.   Remuneration and other special conditions
            interpreters; the LA structure corresponds to grades
            A 8 to A 3 of category A above.                                    (a) Salary: the basic monthly salary for the career
                                                                                bracket covered by the competition is given in
            The Language Service comprises four career brack-                      the notice of competition. The basic salary varies
            ets: LA 8 (Assistant translator, Assistant interpreter),               according to step classification on recruitment.
            LA 7/LA 6 (Lawyer-linguist/interpreter), LA 5/LA 4
            (Reviser, Principal Lawyer-linguist, Principal
            interpreter) and LA 3 (Head of Translation or                      (b) Allowances: in addition to basic salary, the person
            Interpretation Division).                                              appointed will receive the allowances to which he/
                                                                                she is entitled under the Staff Regulations. These
            NB: The linguistic duties specified above require a                    may include the following:
            perfect command of mother tongue or main
            language and a good knowledge of at least two other                    1.    daily subsistence allowance (payable for a lim-
            official languages of the European Union.                                    ited period);
 ---pagebreak--- 31.7.2002           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 182 A/7
         2.   expatriation allowance or foreign residence                    The proceeds of the tax are paid into the budget of
              allowance equivalent to 16 % and 4 % of basic                  the European Union.
              salary respectively;
         and the following family allowances:                                The overall amount of the tax raised reduces the
                                                                             financial contribution of the Member States to the
         1.   household allowance equivalent to 5 % of basic                 budget of the European Union accordingly. For that
              salary;                                                        reason, under Article 13(2) of the Protocol on
                                                                             the Privileges and Immunities of the European
         2.   monthly dependent child allowance;                             Communities, remuneration is exempt from
         3.   education allowance equal to actual education                  national tax.
              costs incurred, with a monthly ceiling, for each
              dependent child.
                                                                         (e) Social environment: there are European Schools at
     (c) Deductions: officials qualify for a pension scheme                  most of the main places of activity of the Com-
         and sickness and accident insurance. Officials’ con-                munity institutions, providing primary and second-
         tributions to these schemes are deducted from their                 ary education up to the level of the European
         remuneration.                                                       baccalaureate. The Schools, which have sections for
                                                                             each of the main teaching languages, are recognised
     (d) Taxes: the remuneration of officials of the European                by all 15 Member States. There are also creches for
         Communities is subject to a tax deducted at source.                 children under school age.


title: Case T-403/13: Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — APRAM v Commission (Action for annulment — Cohesion Fund — Regulation (EU) No 1164/94 — Reduction of financial assistance — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/13

         Order of the General Court of 21 May 2015 — APRAM v Commission
   (Case T-403/13) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Cohesion Fund - Regulation (EU) No 1164/94 - Reduction of financial assistance - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 228/15)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: APRAM — Administração dos Portos da Região Autónoma da Madeira, SA (Funchal, Portugal) (represented by: M. Gorjão-Henriques, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 1870 final, of 27 March 2013, which reduces the contribution from the Cohesion Fund to the project ‘Development of Port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira — Port of Caniçal’, Madeira, Portugal.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               APRAM — Administração dos Portos da Região Autónoma da Madeira, SA is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-197/08: Order of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Polson and Others v Commission

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/57

         Order of the General Court of 11 May 2010 — Polson and Others v Commission
   (Case T-197/08) (1)

   2010/C 179/99

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 5 November 1996 in Joined Cases T-21/95 and T-186/95: Marco Mazzocchi-Alemanni v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Supplementary sickness insurance scheme for officials serving in a third country - Procedure for reimbursement of medical expenses - Application of ceilings)

text:
No C 370/ 12         [ EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7 . 12 . 96
Thomas Sharpe QC, of the Bar of England and Wales,                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
instructed by Alexandre R. M. Nourry, Solicitor, with an                                     of 5 November 1996
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jean
Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, supported by the United Kingdom of            in Joined Cases T-21 /95 and T-186/95 : Marco Mazzocchi
Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( Agents : Lindsey Nicoll,        Alemanni v. Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
Stephanie Ridley, K. P. E. Lasok and Kenneth Parker ) and           (Officials — Supplementary sickness insurance scheme for
by Channel Tunnel Group Ltd, established in London, and             officials serving in a third country — Procedure for
France Manche SA, established in Paris, together                    reimbursement of medical expenses — Application of
constituting Eurotunnel, whose head office is in London,                                             ceilings)
represented by Christine Heron Schwaighofer and Christian
Roth, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in                                           ( 96/C 370/27 )
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand
Rue, British Railways Board being supported also by
European Passenger Services Ltd, established in London,                              (Language of the case: French)
represented by Thomas Sharpe QC, of the Bar of England
and Wales, instructed by Alexandre R. M. Nourry, Solicitor,         In Joined Cases T-21 /95 and T-186/95 : Marco Mazzocchi
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers           Alemanni, an official of the Commission of the European
of Jean Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich, against the Commission of             Communities, residing in Libreville ( Gabon ), represented
the European Communities (Agents: Francisco Enrique                 by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
Gonzalez Diaz, Carmel O'Reilly and Guy Charrier ) —                 service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
applications for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/           Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
894/EC of 13 December 1994 relating to a proceeding                 Communities ( Agent: Julian Currall ) — application for
under Article 85 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA         annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing the
Agreement ( IV/32.490 — Eurotunnel ) ( OJ No L 354 ,                applicant full reimbursement of certain dental expenses —
31 . 12 . 1994, p. 66 ) and, in the alternative, for the            the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ), composed of:
annulment of the conditions laid down in Article 2 ( A ) of         C. P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and A. Potocki,
that decision — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber,        Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
Extended Composition ), composed of C. P. Briët, President,         has given a judgment on 5 November 1996 , in which it:
and B. Vesterdorf, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke,
Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 October 1996 , in              1 . dismisses the action in Case T-21 /95 as inadmissible;
which it ruled as follows :
                                                                    2.    dismisses the action in Case T-l 86/95 as inadmissible in
                                                                          so far as it requests the Court to issue directions or
                                                                          make declarations;
 1 . Cases T-79/95 and T-80/95 are joined for the purposes
     of the judgment.
                                                                     3 . dismisses the remainder of the action as unfounded;
                                                                    4 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.
 2 . Commission Decision 94/894/EC of 13 December 1994
     relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC             (!) OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , and
     Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (IV/                     OJ No C 299 , 11 . 11 . 1995 .
     32.490 — Eurotunnel) is annulled.
 3 . The Commission shall bear its own costs together with
     those of the applicants, including the costs relating to           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     the applications for interim measures. It shall also bear                               of 7 November 1996
     the costs of the intervener European Passenger Services
     Ltd.                                                            in Case T-298/94: Roquette Freres SA v. Council of the
                                                                                European Union ( ] )
                                                                     (Common agricultural policy — Quota system in relation
                                                                     to the production of potato starch — Regulation (EC)
 4 . The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                No 1868/94 — Action for annulment — Closed group of
     Ireland, together with Channel Tunnel Group Ltd and                                 traders — Inadmissibility)
     France Manche SA (Eurotunnel), shall bear their own
     costs .
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/28
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 C ) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 .
                                                                     In Case T-298/94 : Roquette Freres SA, established at
                                                                     Lestrem ( France ), represented by Jacques Dutat, of the


title: Case C-237/05: Action brought on 30 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/18

         Action brought on 30 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-237/05)
   (2005/C 193/28)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 May 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Patakia and X. Lewis, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, owing to the practice followed by the competent authorities in regard to the works involved in the completion and collation of claim declarations by cereal producers and others in the context of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) in respect of 2001, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 92/50/EEC, (1) and in particular Articles 3(2), 7, 11(1), and 15(2) thereof, as well as the general principle of transparency.

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission received a complaint in relation to the direct award to PASEGES (2) of the programme contract, and its implementing agreements, in relation to the provision of multiple services in connection with the application of the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) in respect of 2001.
   In light of the Court's case-law, the Commission considers that the Greek authorities ought to have applied the rules of procedural openness laid down by Directive 92/50 in Titles III, IV, V, and VI.
   The Commission further considers that the Hellenic Republic, on the one hand, has not substantiated the existence of grounds for derogation under Article 11(3)(b) of Directive 92/50 and, on the other, has wrongly categorised the services in question as coming under Annex 1B to the directive.
   In the alternative, the Commission maintains that the Member States are not relieved of the obligation to maintain a certain degree of openness even in regard to services coming under Annex 1B to the directive.
   Finally, the Commission considers that, apart from the continuing variance in regard to the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the directive at issue as between the Greek authorities and the Commission, application of the directive in practice has not been secured, contrary to the assertions of the Greek authorities.
   Accordingly, the Commission considers that the Hellenic Republic infringed its obligations under Articles 3(2), 7, 11(1) and 15(2) of Directive 92/50/EEC, as well as the general principle of transparency.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.

      (2)  Panellinia Sinomospondia Enoseon Georgikon Sinetairismon (Pan-Hellenic association of unions of agricultural cooperatives).


title: Case T-250/09: Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Cesea Group v OHIM — Mangini & C. (Mangiami) (Community trade mark — Invalidity Proceedings — Community figurative mark Mangiami — Earlier international word mark MANGINI — Admissibility of new evidence — Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/16

         Judgment of the General Court of 22 September 2011 — Cesea Group v OHIM — Mangini & C. (Mangiami)
   (Case T-250/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity Proceedings - Community figurative mark Mangiami - Earlier international word mark MANGINI - Admissibility of new evidence - Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2011/C 319/30
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Cesea Group Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone, D. Demarinis and J. Wrede, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Mangini & C. Srl (Sestri Levante, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 April 2009 (Case R 982/2008-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between Mangini & C. Srl and Cesea Group Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 April 2009 (Case R 982/2008-2).

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.8.2009.


title: Case T-45/07: Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Unipetrol v Commission

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/49

         Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Unipetrol v Commission
   (Case T-45/07)
   (2007/C 82/103)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Unipetrol a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: J. Matějček and I. Janda, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision in whole or in part, at least as far as Unipetrol is concerned;

               —

               otherwise exercise the Court's unlimited jurisdiction; and

               —

               order the Commission to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 5700 final of 29 November 2006 in Case COMP/F/38.638 — Butadiene Rubber and Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber, by which the Commission found that the applicant, together with other undertakings, had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by agreeing on price targets for the products, sharing customers by non-aggression agreements and exchanging commercial information relating to prices, competitors and customers.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission:

               —

               committed an error of appreciation by rejecting the evidence that the applicant's holding of all the shares of the company Kaučuk was of a purely financial nature or, alternatively, committed a manifest error of appreciation by rejecting evidence which demonstrated that Kaučuk acted on the market as an autonomous entity, without any intervention by the applicant in Kaučuk's sales and marketing policy concerning emulsion styrene butadiene rubber; and

               —

               erred in law by imputing the same conduct twice to different entities, i.e. to Kaučuk and to Kaučuk's shareholder, the applicant.

         The rest of the pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are identical or similar to those raised in Case T-44/07, Kaučuk v Commission.


title: Case C-402/06: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — Op- en Overslagbedrijf Van der Vaart B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Product obtained from curdled milk and the extraction of a significant quantity of serum)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/9

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands) — Op- en Overslagbedrijf Van der Vaart B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-402/06) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Product obtained from curdled milk and the extraction of a significant quantity of serum)
   (2007/C 211/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Op — en Overslagbedrijf Van der Vaart

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1996 L 238, p. 1) — Product obtained from curdled milk and extraction of most of the serum containing not more than 2 % of whey-albumin that has been broken down by the activity of an enzyme added during a drying process lasting 24 to 36 hours
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Heading 0406 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1734/96 of 9 September 1996, must be construed in such a way that it can accommodate the classification of a product, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, obtained from curdled milk from which a great deal of the serum has been extracted and the albumin content of which has been reduced, by the effect of an enzyme, to 2 % of the total quantity of the albumins during a drying process lasting 24 to 36 hours and consisting of casein and more than 50 % humidity.

               2.

               Subheading 0406 20 90 of the Combined Nomenclature must be construed in such a way that it can accommodate a product, such as that in issue in the main proceedings, which contains more than 50 % humidity and less than 1 % fat and is ground into regular granules of 2 to 4 mm in size and is intended for use in the manufacture of pizza toppings and in the preparation of cheese sauces.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Case T-504/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM — Protecsom (DIGNITUDE)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/31

         Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM — Protecsom (DIGNITUDE)
   (Case T-504/11)
   2011/C 340/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Protecsom SAS (Valognes, France)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2011 in case R 1197/2010-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DIGNITUDE’, for goods in classes 5, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 7506025

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 7436603, of the word mark ‘Dignity’, for goods in class 5; German trade mark registration No 302008076849.5/05, of the word mark ‘Dignity’, for goods in classes 5 and 10

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal made an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in particular of the similarity of the goods.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/60

         Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-63/04)
   (2004/C 94/154)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, established in České Budějovice (Czech Republic), represented by Fabienne Fajgenbaum, lawyer.
   Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 3 December 2003;

               —

               reject the application for the registration of BUD for Class 25 filed on 1 April 1996 on behalf of Anheuser-Busch;

               —

               order Anheuser-Busch to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘BUD’ — Application No 24695 in respect of goods in Class 25 (clothing etc)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Appellations of origin ‘BUD’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). The applicant, entitled in France to use the above-mentioned appellations of origin, submits that French law enables it to oppose the registration of the mark sought without having to demonstrate that the appellations in question possess a reputation in France and without having to examine whether the use of the mark at issue could have the consequence of misappropriating or weakening the reputation of those appellations.

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