title: Action brought on 24 October 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-368/97)

text:
6. 12. 97             I EN I                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 370/5
the European Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber,                 2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of the                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                        These are analogous to those in Case C-367/97 ( 2 ).
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        (') OJ L 319 , 12 . 12 . 1994 , p. 20 .
                                                                        ( 2 ) See p. 4 of this Official Journal .
1 . declare that, by not laying down the laws, regulations
     and administrative provisions necessary in order to
     comply with Council Directive 94/5 7/EC (') of
     22 November 1994 on common rules and standards
     for ship inspection and survey organizations and for
     the relevant activities of maritime administrations, the
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
     Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its                Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 7 October
     obligations under this directive and under the EC                  1997 in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren
     Treaty;                                                                 Wettbewerb v. F. W. Woolworth Co . Gesellschaft mbH
                                                                                ( Case C-369/97 )
2 . order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the
     costs .                                                                                ( 97/C 370/ 12 )
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Forth Senate of
                                                                        the Oberster Gerichtshof ( Supreme Court ), Austria , of
Under the mandatory provisions of the third paragraph of                7 October 1997, which was received at the Court Registry
Article 189 and of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the
                                                                        on 27 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case
EC Treaty, the Member States are required to lay down                   of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v. F. W.
the necessary rules in order to comply with directives                  Woolworth Co Gesellschaft mbH on the following
addressed to them before expiry of the period laid down                 question :
in those directives . In this case that period expired on
31 December 1995 without the Netherlands having laid
                                                                        does Article 30 of the EC Treaty preclude a provision
down the necessary provisions .
                                                                        which reserves the fitting and supplying of corrective
                                                                        spectacles and hence also the marketing of ready-made
(') OJ L 319 , 12 . 12 . 1994 , p . 20 .                                reading glasses to opticians who are permitted to exercise
                                                                        their craft trade only on providing proof of qualifications,
                                                                        if account is taken of the fact that
                                                                        ( a ) spectacles fitted by opticians are substantially more
                                                                               expensive than ready-made reading glasses and
Action brought on 24 October 1997 by the Commission                            opticians will therefore be more interested in sales of
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             glasses fitted by them that in selling ready-made
                                Belgium                                        reading glasses; and
                          ( Case C-368/97)
                                                                        ( b ) ready-made reading glasses come ( partly ) from abroad,
                            ( 97/C 370/ 11 )                                   whereas spectacles fitted by opticians form part of
                                                                               domestic production ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 24 October 1997 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by B. J. Drijber, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
office of C. Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service,                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Civile
Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.                                              e Penale di Venezia, First Chamber, by order of 7 October
                                                                        1997       in  the    case    of Cinzia    Gozza and Others v.
                                                                        ( 1 ) Università degli Studi di Padova; ( 2 ) Ministero
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica;
                                                                        ( 3 ) Ministero della Sanità; and ( 4 ) Ministero della
1 . declare that, by not laying down the laws, regulations                                        Pubblica Istruzione
     and administrative provisions necessary in order to                                            ( Case C-371/97 )
     comply with Council Directive 94/57/EC (') of
     22 November 1994 on common rules and standards                                                   ( 97/C 370/ 13 )
     for ship inspection and survey organizations and for
     the relevant activities of maritime administrations, the           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations            European Communities by order of 7 October 1997 from
     under this directive and under the EC Treaty;                      the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Venezia ( Civil and


title: Case C-589/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v GMAC UK plc (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 11C(1), first subparagraph — Direct effect — Reduction of the taxable amount — Two transactions concerning the same goods — Supply of goods — Cars, sold on a hire purchase basis, repossessed and sold at auction — Abuse of rights)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/9

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v GMAC UK plc
      (Case C-589/12) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 11C(1), first subparagraph - Direct effect - Reduction of the taxable amount - Two transactions concerning the same goods - Supply of goods - Cars, sold on a hire purchase basis, repossessed and sold at auction - Abuse of rights))
      (2014/C 395/10)
      Language of the case: English

         Referring court

      Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

         Defendant: GMAC UK plc

         Operative part of the judgment

      The first subparagraph of Article 11C(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, a Member State may not prevent a taxable person from invoking the direct effect of that provision in respect of one transaction by arguing that that person may rely on the provisions of national law in relation to another transaction concerning the same goods and that the cumulative application of those provisions would produce an overall fiscal result which neither national law nor Sixth Directive 77/388, applied separately to those transactions, produces or is intended to produce.

         (1)  OJ C 71, 9.3.2013.


title: Case T-230/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2007 — Golf USA v OHIM (GOLF USA) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark GOLF USA — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2007 — Golf USA v OHIM (GOLF USA)
   (Case T-230/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark GOLF USA - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character)
   (2007/C 95/78)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Golf USA Inc., established in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (United States)) (represented by: A. de Bosch Kemper-de Hilster, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and G. Schneider, agents)
   Re:
   Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of (OHIM) of 25 April 2005 (R 823/2004-2) refusing the application to register the word mark GOLF USA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.


title: Case C-27/09 P: Appeal brought on 21 January 2009 by the French Republic against the judgment delivered on 4 December 2008 by the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-284/08 People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran v Council of the European Union

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/14

         Appeal brought on 21 January 2009 by the French Republic against the judgment delivered on 4 December 2008 by the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) in Case T-284/08 People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-27/09 P)
   (2009/C 82/26)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: French Republic (represented by: E. Belliard, G. de Bergues, A.-L. During, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran, Council of the European Union, Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 4 December 2008 in Case T-284/08 People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran v Council;

               —

               itself give final judgment in the case by dismissing the PMOI's action or refer the case back to the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The French Government considers that the judgment under appeal should be set aside, first, because the Court of First Instance erred in law by holding that the Council had adopted Decision 2008/583/EC (1) in disregard of the PMOI's rights of defence, without taking account of the specific circumstances of the adoption of that decision; second, because the Court erred in law by considering that the judicial procedure opened in France against alleged members of the PMOI did not constitute a decision meeting the definition in Article 1(4) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism; and, finally, because the Court erred in law by holding that the refusal by the Council to communicate point 3 a) of one of the three documents supplied by the French authorities to the Council in support of their request for the inclusion of the PMOI in the list established by Decision 2008/583/EC, and sent to the Court by the Council in response to the Court Order of 26 September 2008 on measures of inquiry, did not enable the Court to review the lawfulness of Decision 2008/583/EC and infringed the right to effective judicial protection.

      (1)  Council Decision of 15 July 2008 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2007/868/EC (OJ 2008 L 188, p. 21).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello, Ancona, by order of that court of 11 April 1996 in the case of Finanze dello Stato against Foods Import SRL (Case C-133/96)

text:
No C 180/22             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22 . 6 . 96
Is the stamp tax having the characteristics mentioned above                Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale ( INPS ) on the
to be regarded as a turnover tax in the terms of Article 33 of             interprétation of Artide 46 ( 2 ) ( a ) of Régulation ( EEC ) No
the said Sixth Directive ( ! ), subject to a possible derogation           1408/71 (') in order to ascertain :
under Article 378 of the Act annexed to the Treaty of
Accession ( 2 ) or any other Community legal provision ?                  whether, in order to determine the amount of an Italian pro
                                                                          rata pension , the INPS ( national social security institution )
C ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the              must base its calculations on the ' notional ' or theoretical
      harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to          pension alone or on the ' notional ' or theoretical pension
      turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax : uniform          supplemented to meet the statutory minimun .
      basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 ).
( 2 ) Documents concerning the accession of the Portuguese                 (') OJ, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 .
      Republic to the European Communities , OJ No L 302 , 15 . 11 .
      1985 .
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte di Appello,
                                                                          Ancona, by order of that court of 11 April 1996 in the case
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                      of Finanze dello Stato against Foods Import SRL
Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 8 February                                            ( Case C-133 /96 )
 1996      in   the   case     of    Carlos   Mora      Romero    v.
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/48 )
             Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz
                          ( Case C-131 /96 )                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            ( 96/C 180/46 )                               European Communities by order of the Corte di Appello
                                                                           ( Court of Appeal ) Ancona , of 11 April 19 96 , which was
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    received at the Court Registry on 24 April 1996 , for a
European Communities by an order of the                                   preliminary ruling in the Case of Finanze dello Stato against
Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) of 8 February                Foods Import SRL on the following questions :
 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 24 April
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Carlos Maria               1 . Is the list given in Council Regulation ( EEC ) No
Romero v . Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz on the                       3796/81 of 29 December 1981 ( 1 ) ( and repeated in
following question :                                                            Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3333/83 of 4 November
                                                                                1983 ( 2 )), Annex VI to which reproduces Chapter 3 of
                                                                                the Common Customs Tariff in which cod appears
Are Articles 6 , 48 and 51 of the Treaty establishing the                       under heading 03.02 A. I and fillets of cod under
European Community and Article 7 of Council Regulation                          heading 03.02 . A. II, supplemented by the mention
( EEC ) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers                           Gadus morrhua, Boreogadus saida, Gadus ogac,
within the Community ( 1 ) to be interpreted as permitting the                  exhaustive or illustrative and, accordingly, is the dried
legislature of a Member State to extend the period for                          cod scientifically classified as Molva molva covered by
drawing orphan's benefit beyond the age of 25 years only in                     that list ?
respect of those persons whose education and training has
been prolonged beyond the age of 25 years through
fulfilment of the duty of military service in accordance with             2 . Does Article 20 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No
the laws of the State ?                                                         3796/81 , suspending certain Common Customs Tariff
                                                                                duties , apply only to the three sub-species of cod referred
                                                                                to in Question 1 ( Gadus morrhua, Boreogadus saida,
C ) OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p . 475 .                         Gadus ogac) to the exclusion of other sub-species such
                                                                                as Molva ?
                                                                          3 . In any event, since the Court of Justice established by its
                                                                                judgment of 22 October 1987 in Case 314/85 that,
                                                                                where the three requirements specified in Article 5 ( 2 ) of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura, Rome, by                     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79 ( 3 ) are satisfied ,
order of that court of 4 April 1996 in the case of Antonio                      debtors are entitled to non-recovery of duties not
Stinco against Istituto Nazionale délia Previdenza Sociale                      collected, in what circumstances is that provision to be
                                 ( INPS )                                       applied, that is to say, what conduct on the part of the
                         ( Case C-132/96 )                                      creditor and the debtor is to be regarded as decisive with
                                                                                respect to the right to non-recovery of duties not
                            ( 96/C 180/47 )                                     collected ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    (') OJ No L 379 , 31 . 12 . 1981 , p . 1 .
European Communities by order of the Pretura                              ( 2 ) OJ No L 313 , 14 . 11 . 1983 , p . 1 .
( Magistrate's Court ) Rome, of 4 April 1 996 , which was                 (■') OJ No L 197, 3 . 8 . 1979 , p . 1 .
received at the Court Registry on 24 April 1996 , for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Antonio Stinco against


C 144/32              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    15.6.2002
       Removal from the register of Case C-282/01 (1)                register of Case C-288/01 (Referral for a preliminary ruling by
                                                                     the Schleswig-Holsteinisches Finanzgericht): Ulf Thomsen v
                       (2002/C 144/66)                               Finanzamt Flensburg.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 275 of 29.9.2001.
By order of 21 March 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-282/01: Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-350/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/69)
                                                                     By order of 6 March 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-287/01 (1)                of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-350/01: Commission of the European
                       (2002/C 144/67)                               Communities v Italian Republic.
By order of 11 April 2002 the President of the Court of Justice      (1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-287/01: Commission of the European
Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.                                                   Removal from the register of Case C-409/01 (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 144/70)
       Removal from the register of Case C-288/01 (1)                By order of 22 March 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                       (2002/C 144/68)                               from the register of Case C-409/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling by the Tribunale Civile e Penale di L’Aquila): Rolando
                                                                     Salusest v Giovanni Petrucci.
By order of 6 March 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the             (1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.


title: Case C-549/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Arnsberg (Germany) lodged on 22 October 2013 — Bundesdruckerei GmbH v Stadt Dortmund

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekammer Arnsberg (Germany) lodged on 22 October 2013 — Bundesdruckerei GmbH v Stadt Dortmund
   (Case C-549/13)
   2014/C 24/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Vergabekammer Arnsberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bundesdruckerei GmbH

      Defendant: Stadt Dortmund

      Question referred

   Do Article 56 TFEU and Article 3(1) of Directive 96/71/EC (1) preclude national legislation and/or a procurement condition of a public contracting authority according to which a tenderer who wants to obtain a or the advertised public contract must (1) undertake to pay the staff appointed to carry out the contract a standard or minimum wage fixed in the legislation, and (2) impose the same obligation on an appointed or prospective subcontractor and submit a corresponding undertaking of the subcontractor to the contracting authority, where (a) the legislation provides for such an obligation only for the procurement of public contracts but not also for the award of private contracts, and (b) the subcontractor is resident in another EU Member State and the employees of the subcontractor carry out the services covered by the contract exclusively in the subcontractor’s home country?

      (1)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1).


title: Case T-53/09: Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Cafea v OHIM — Christian (BEST FARM)

text:
               18.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/30

         Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Cafea v OHIM — Christian (BEST FARM)
   (Case T-53/09)
   2009/C 90/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Cafea GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Schumann and M. Hartmann, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dieter Christian (Frankfurt, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 27 November 2008 in Case R 420/2008-1;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               order the applicant for a Community trade mark to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dieter Christian

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BEST FARM’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 32 (Registration No 3 089 281)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant acting under its previous corporate name KORD Beiteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘BESTFORM’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 42 (No 300 563 34)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), because there exists a likelihood of confusion, or at least a likelihood of association, between the conflicting marks

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/941 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)


               15.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/17

         Action brought on 10 November 2014 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-22/14)
   (2015/C 11/07)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 November 2014 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively DB Schenker), represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, N-0151 Oslo, Norway.
   The applicants request the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Annul ESA’s decision of 9 September 2014 in Case No 75697 (DB Schenker);

               2.

               Order ESA and any intervener to bear the costs.

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

               —

               The applicants, Schenker North AB and Schenker Privpak AB, both established in Sweden, and Schenker Privpak AS, established in Norway, are part of the DB Schenker group. The group is a global freight forwarding and logistics undertaking owned by Deutsche Bahn AG.

               —

               By its judgment in Case E-5/13 DB Schenker v ESA on 7 July 2014, the EFTA Court annulled ESA’s decision of 25 January 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 (DB Schenker) in so far as it refused full or partial access under Article 4(4) and (6) RAD 2012 to documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system) and refused to grant access to the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL.

               —

               On 17 July 2014, DB Schenker received a letter by e-mail from ESA informing them that ESA had again decided to refuse DB Schenker access to the contested documents. DB Schenker was invited to submit a confirmatory application if it wanted ESA to reconsider its position.

               —

               On 27 August 2014, DB Schenker sent a confirmatory application to ESA. On 9 September 2014 ESA sent an e-mail to DB Schenker containing a copy of the decision, which again refused DB Schenker full or partial access under Article 4(4) and (6) RAD 2012 to the same documents, i.e. the documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system), and the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL. DB Schenker seeks to annul this decision under Article 36 SCA.

         The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

               —

               infringed the commercial interests exception in Article 4(4) RAD (2012) and the professional secrecy obligation in Article 122 EEA, Article 14(4) SCA and Article 28(2) of Chapter II of Protocol 4 SCA, and thereby wrongfully suppressed the contested documents in contravention of the public right of access in Article 2(1) RAD 2012,

               —

               infringed the overriding public interest exception in Articles 4(4) and 4(6) RAD 2012, and thereby wrongfully suppressed the contested documents in contravention of the public right of access in Article 2(1) RAD 2012.


title: Case T-293/10: Action brought on 6 July 2010 — Seven Towns Ltd v OHIM

text:
               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/16

         Action brought on 6 July 2010 — Seven Towns Ltd v OHIM
   (Case T-293/10)
   ()
   2010/C 260/22
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Seven Towns Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: E. Schäfer, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Partially annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 1475/2009-1, as far as Community trade mark application No 5650817 was rejected;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings including applicant’s costs of legal representation.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: A colour per se mark described as ‘six surfaces being geometrically arranged in three pairs of parallel surfaces, with each pair being arranged perpendicularly to the other two pairs characterised by (i) any two adjacent surfaces having different colours and (ii) each surface having a grid structure formed by black borders dividing the surface into nine equal segments’. The indicated colours were red (PMS 200C); green (PMS 347C); blue (PMS 293C); orange (PMS 021C); yellow (PMS 012C); white and black for goods in class 28 — Community trade mark application No 5650817

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected Community trade mark application No 5650817

      Pleas in law: The applicant advances two pleas in law in support of its application.
   On the basis of its first plea, the applicant claims that the contested decision violates the principles of due process by infringing Articles 80(1) and 80(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 in conjunction with Rule 53(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal erroneously examined the substantive issue.
   By its second plea, the applicant considers that the contested decision violates its right of fair proceedings by infringing Article 64(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal based its decision on a completely new argument without the Applicant having been invited to submit its observations.


Important legal notice

|

E2000P0009

Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway (Case E-9/00)

Official Journal C 049 , 15/02/2001 P. 0010 - 0011

Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway(Case E-9/00)(2001/C 49/15)An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 21 December 2000 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Peter Dyrberg, acting as Agent of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 74 Rue de Trèves, B-1040 Brussels.The applicant claims that the Court should declare that the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations under the following provisions of the EEA Agreement:- Article 16, by applying two forms of sale at the retail level where beer with an alcohol content between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, mainly produced domestically, may be sold outside the outlets of the State controlled Wine and Spirits Monopoly ("Vinmonopolet"), while other alcoholic beverages with the same alcohol content, mostly imported from other EEA States, may only be sold through the Monopoly, and- Article 11, by applying more restrictive measures regarding licences to serve alcoholic beverages with an alcoholic content between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, mostly imported from other EEA States, compared to beer with the same alcohol content, mainly produced domestically, these measures not being necessary and proportionate in relation to the objective of safeguarding public health under Article 13 of the EEA Agreement.Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:- Article 16 provides that any State monopoly of a commercial character must be adjusted so that no discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured and marketed will exist between nationals of EC Member States and EFTA States,- by requiring that retail sales of other alcoholic beverages than beer, with an alcohol content between 2,5 % and 4,75 % by volume, only take place through Vinmonopolet, while allowing beer to be sold in grocery stores pursuant to municipal licence, Norway has, according to the applicant, failed to comply with Article 16 of the EEA Agreement,- beer is overwhelmingly domestically produced, while other alcoholic drinks with the same alcoholic content are mostly imported. Furthermore, according to the applicant, there is a competitive relationship between these products,- Article 11 of the EEA Agreement prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports, and all measures having an equivalent effect thereto. Such a measure may only be allowed if it is justified under Article 13 of the EEA Agreement,- by not allowing licences held by restaurants and other establishments to serve beer to cover other alcoholic beverages having the same alcoholic content, including beverages based on spirits, Norway has, according to the applicant, failed to comply with Article 11 of the EEA Agreement,- the applicant submits that justification for this prohibition cannot be found in Article 13 of the EEA Agreement on grounds of public health, since the measure chosen is unnecessary and disproportionate.


C 48/22               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                20.2.1999
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and                  Removal from the register of Case C-409/97 (1)
                          C-389/97 (1)                                                    (1999/C 48/44)
                        (1999/C 48/40)
                                                                  By order of 19 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the
By order of 11 November 1998, the President of the                European Communities (First Chamber) has ordered the
Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the          removal from the register of Case C-409/97: Commission
removal from the register of Joined Cases C-388/97 and            of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
C-389/97 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the             Luxembourg.
Conseil d'EÂtat): Fromagerie Philipona SA and Others v.
French Republic.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-415/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-253/98 (1)                                      (1999/C 48/45)
                        (1999/C 48/41)
                                                                  By order of 24 November 1998, the President of the
                                                                  Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 11 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          removal from the register of Case C-415/97: Commission
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
register of Case C-253/98: Commission of the European
Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 41, 7.2.1998.
(1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-167/98 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-397/97 (1)                                      (1999/C 48/46)
                        (1999/C 48/42)
                                                                  By order of 2 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the
By order of 13 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          European Communities has ordered the removal from the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             register of Case C-167/98 (request for a preliminary ruling
register of Case C-397/97: Commission of the European             from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Westdeutsche Landesbank
Communities v. Italian Republic.                                  Girozentrale v. Johannes Leon.
(1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.                                           (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-274/94 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-305/98 P (1)
                        (1999/C 48/43)                                                    (1999/C 48/47)
By order of 17 November 1998 the Court of Justice of the          By order of 7 December 1998 the Court of Justice of the
European Communities has ordered the removal from the             European Communities has ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-274/94: United Kingdom of Great                register of Case 305/98 P: David T. Keeling v. Office for
Britain and Northern Ireland v. Commission of the                 Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
European Communities.                                             Designs).
(1) OJ C 351, 10.12.1994.                                         (1) OJ C 312, 10.10.1998.


title: Action brought on 10 January 1997 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-6/97)

text:
22 . 3 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 94/5
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Fourth Chamber                   in any way constitute a State aid incompatible with the
of the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Firenze, by                   common market, because, contrary to the Commission's
order of that court of 18 October 1996 in the case of                      assertions, the State has not made any grant of aid, either
Manifattura Italiana Nonwoven SpA v. Direzione Regiona                    directly or indirectly, which distorts or threatens to distort
            le delle Entrate (Florence Office, Tuscany)                    competition by affecting trade.
                             (Case C-4/97)
                               ( 97/C 94/09 )                              None of the arguments of the Commission, which alleges
                                                                           a use of State resources which distorts competition and
                                                                           affects trade, hits the mark; the provision adopted, as a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     temporary measure, to buffer the increase in the price of
European Communities by an order of the Fourth                             diesel fuel in Italy, in favour both of Italian hauliers
Chamber of the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Fi
                                                                           carrying goods by road for hire or reward and also,
renze ( Provincial Tax Court, Florence ) of 18 October                     similarly, for non-Italian Community hauliers actually hit
1996, which was received at the Court Registry on                          by the higher tax charged on diesel fuel in Italy, is not
9 January 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                    open to challenge under Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty.
Manifattura Italiana Nonwoven SpA v. Direzione Regiona                    Consequently, the Commission's decision must be
le delle Entrate — Toscana, Sezione di Firenze (Tuscany                    annulled .
Regional Tax Directorate, Florence Office ), on the
following question:
                                                                           In the alternative, with reference to the obligation to
Is a statutory tax on the net assets of companies with                     recover sums laid down in Article 2 of the contested
share capital which has effects economically equivalent to                 decision, the Italian Government cannot but point out that
those of an indirect tax on capital contributions                          such recovery is absolutely impossible . It is impossible for
compatible with Community law and in particular with                       two sets of reasons: first of all, because asking the hauliers
Directive 69/335/EEC H ?                                                   to repay those sums would cause an uprising that would
                                                                           trigger off a social conflict from which the State could
( 1 ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1969 (II ), p. 412.        only emerge as the loser; and second, because the
                                                                           operations which would be technically necessary to
                                                                           recover those sums would run into problems which may
                                                                           reasonably be considered insuperable, given the huge
                                                                           number of persons concerned and the division of the
                                                                           credit between different taxes and rates of taxes .
Action brought on 10 January 1997 by the Italian
Republic against the Commission of the European                            Consequently, even if the application has to be dismissed
                              Communities                                  in so far as it concerns Article 1 of the contested decision
                             ( Case C-6/97)                                relating to the compatibility of the system in question with
                                                                           Article 92 of the Treaty, the application, without prejudice
                               ( 97/C 94/10                                to the Italian Government's undertaking not to repropose
                                                                           or continue the system in dispute, should be upheld and
An action against the Commission of the European                           by annulment of the contested decision in so far as it
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                     orders recovery of the credit granted.
the European Communities on 10 January 1997 by the
Italian Republic, represented by Professor Umberto
Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Oscar Fiumara, Avvo
cato dello Stato, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 rue Marie-Adelaide .
                                                                           Action brought on 15 January 1997 by the Commission of
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-8/97
— principally, annul the decision of the Commission of
      the European Communities of 22 October 1996 C(96 )                                             97/C 94/11 )
       3078 final in its entirety,
— in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it                  An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
       imposes the obligation to recover the aid together with             before the Court of Justice on 15 January 1997 by the
       interest,                                                           Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                           by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal Adviser to the
— in either case, order the Commission to pay the costs.                   Commission, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                           at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
As regards the full compatibility with the Treaty of the                   The applicant claims that the Court should declare that,
system introduced in Italy for the years in question, the                  by failing to adopt or, in the alternative, to communicate
Italian Government claims that the system itself does not                  to the Commission, within the period prescribed, the laws,


title: Case T-447/12: Order of the General Court of 30 April 2014  — Visa Europe v Commission

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/38

         Order of the General Court of 30 April 2014 — Visa Europe v Commission
   (Case T-447/12) (1)

   2014/C 194/51
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Case T-780/16: Action brought on 8 November 2016 — Mediaexpert v EUIPO — Mediaexpert (mediaexpert)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/51

         Action brought on 8 November 2016 — Mediaexpert v EUIPO — Mediaexpert (mediaexpert)
   (Case T-780/16)
   (2017/C 006/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Mediaexpert sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: J. Aftyka, (lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mediaexpert S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark in colour black, yellow and white, containing the word element ‘mediaexpert’ — EU trade mark No 11 674 132

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2016 in Case R 2583/2015-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               annul the decision of Cancellation Division dated 29/10/2015 in application for a declaration of invalidity proceedings N 000009371 C;

               —

               refer the case back to EUIPO so it can amend the decision on the substance of the case and invalidate European Union Trade Mark No 011674132 in respect of all the services covered;

               —

               charge the EUIPO with the costs of the proceedings before the Cancellation Division, Board of Appeal and General Court.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 53(1) (a) in conjunction with Article 8(1) (a) and (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-52/08 P: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Commission v Carpi Badía (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Promotion — 2005 promotion procedure — Priority points — Points not allocated due to a technical problem — A* Promotion Committee — Allocation of a lower number of points than had been proposed by the applicant’s superior — Failure to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/47

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Commission v Carpi Badía
      (Case T-52/08 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Promotion - 2005 promotion procedure - Priority points - Points not allocated due to a technical problem - A* Promotion Committee - Allocation of a lower number of points than had been proposed by the applicant’s superior - Failure to include the applicant in the list of officials eligible for promotion)
      (2012/C 25/90)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and K. Herrmann, Agents)

         Other party to the proceedings: José María Carpi Badía (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

         Re:

      Appeal lodged against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 22 November 2007 in Case F 110/06 Carpi Badía v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, with a view to having that judgment set aside.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the appeal;

                  2.

                  Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay Mr José María Carpi Badía’s costs.

         (1)  OJ C 92, 12.4.2008.


title: Case C-156/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsischen Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 April 2008 — Monika Vollkommer v Finanzamt Hannover-Land I

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsischen Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 16 April 2008 — Monika Vollkommer v Finanzamt Hannover-Land I
   (Case C-156/08)
   (2008/C 183/18)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Niedersächsischen Finanzgericht
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Monika Vollkommer

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hannover-Land I
   Question referred
   Is the imposition of German real property transfer tax on future building work as a result of its inclusion in the taxable amount for real property transfer tax on the purchase of a plot of land not yet built on (so-called single supply consisting of building work and purchase of land) contrary to the prohibition on multiple taxation in Article 401 of the Directive on the common system of value added tax (1) (formerly Article 33(1) of the Sixth Directive) (2) where the building work subject to real property transfer tax is also subject to German turnover tax as an independent supply?

      (1)  OJ L 347, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-20/09: Action brought on 15 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/12

         Action brought on 15 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-20/09)
   (2009/C 82/23)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Caeiros, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by providing, in connection with adjustment in accordance with Law No 39-A/2005, preferential tax treatment for public debt securities issued by the Portuguese State alone, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 of the EC Treaty and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA);

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In September 2005 the Commission received a complaint concerning the incompatibility of certain provisions of the ‘Regime Excepcional de Regularização Tributária de elementos patrimoniais que não se encontrem no território português em 31 de Dezembro de 2004’ (Extraordinary Scheme for the tax adjustment of financial assets not situated within Portuguese territory on 31 December 2004), approved by Law No 39-A/2005.
   The effect of that Extraordinary Scheme is that persons liable to tax must, in the context of tax adjustment, pay the sum corresponding to the application of a rate of 5 % on the value of the financial assets appearing in the tax adjustment declaration and that if any or all of the financial assets listed in that declaration were Portuguese State securities, that rate would be reduced to half in respect of those securities and that reduction would be applied also to other financial assets if their respective value had been reinvested in Portuguese State securities before the date on which the tax adjustment declaration was submitted.
   The Commission maintains that the Extraordinary Scheme confers an advantage, with regard to the repatriation of pecuniary items and to investment in Portuguese State securities, consisting of the application of a reduced rate to pecuniary items that are Portuguese State securities or to the value of financial assets reinvested in Portuguese State securities. As a matter of fact, persons using that scheme are discouraged from keeping their adjusted assets in forms other than Portuguese State securities.
   The Court of Justice of the European Communities has already declared that a provision of domestic fiscal law capable of dissuading tax-payers from investing in other Member States amounts to a restriction of free movement of capital for the purpose of Article 56 EC.
   In the present case, the Commission, while not denying that public debt securities may enjoy more favourable treatment, maintains that a lower tax rate applicable only to adjusted financial assets that are Portuguese State securities constitutes a discriminatory restriction of movements of capital prohibited by Article 56 EC and cannot be vindicated on the basis of Article 58 EC.
   The rules of the EEA Agreement relating to movements of capital are, substantially, the same as those laid down in the EC Treaty. In consequence, the fact that the persons who could make use of the Extraordinary Scheme for the tax adjustment of financial assets have been dissuaded from keeping their adjusted financial assets in Norway, Lichtenstein or Iceland also constitutes a restriction of movements of capital, prohibited by Article 40 of the EEA Agreement.


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 118/29
       Removal from the register of Case C-220/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-248/00 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/76)                                                       (2001/C 118/79)
By order of 14 December 2000 the President of the Court of            By order of 15 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-220/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-248/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Portugal.                                      European Communities v France.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-275/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-411/99 (1)
                       (2001/C 118/77)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/80)
By order of 19 December 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 16 January 2001 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-275/99: (reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg): Société            from the register of Case C-411/99: Commission of the
Adidas Sarragan France v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du            European Communities v Austria.
Bas-Rhin.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-54/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-236/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/81)
                       (2001/C 118/78)
                                                                      By order of 16 January 2001 the President of the Court of
By order of 9 January 2001 the President of the Court of              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           from the register of Case C-54/00: Commission of the
from the register of Case C-236/00: Commission of the                 European Communities v Italy.
European Communities v Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.


title: Case F-86/12: Action brought on 9 August 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               17.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/39

         Action brought on 9 August 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-86/12)
   2012/C 355/84
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: A. Lizer-Klatka, legal adviser)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to extend the validity of reserve list EPSO/AD/60/6 in relation to the applicant by the period that she spent on maternity and parental leave.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 17 October 2011 terminating the validity of reserve list EPSO AD/60/06 on 31 December 2011 in relation to the applicant and the decision of 10 May 2012 issued in response to the applicant’s complaint No R/147111, and extend the validity of reserve list EPSO AD/60/06 in relation to the applicant by the period that she spent on maternity and parental leave while that list was valid, that is to say, by the period of 3 years and 46 days;

               —

               Order that the parties shall each bear their own costs in accordance with Article 89(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal of 25 July 2007 and the applicant’s arguments contained in paragraph 56 et seq. of the present application.


title: Case C-161/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 31 March 2017 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 31 March 2017 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Dirk Renckhoff
   (Case C-161/17)
   (2017/C 231/06)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Defendant: Dirk Renckhoff

      Question referred

   Does the inclusion of a work — which is freely accessible to all internet users on a third-party website with the consent of the copyright holder — on a person’s own publicly accessible website constitute a making available of that work to the public within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC (1) if the work is first copied onto a server and is uploaded from there to that person’s own website?

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


title: Joined Cases T-593/14, T-596/14, T-601/14, T-602/14, T-604/14, T-606/14 and T-612/14: Order of the General Court of 21 July 2015 — Makhlouf v Council

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/51

         Order of the General Court of 21 July 2015 — Makhlouf v Council
   (Joined Cases T-593/14, T-596/14, T-601/14, T-602/14, T-604/14, T-606/14 and T-612/14) (1)

   (2015/C 320/69)
   Language of the case: French
   The General Court (single judge) has ordered that the joined cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case C-518/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 10 October 2011 — UPC Nederland BV v Gemeente Hilversum

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/25

      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 10 October 2011 — UPC Nederland BV v Gemeente Hilversum
      (Case C-518/11)
      (2012/C 25/45)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Gerechtshof te Amsterdam

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: UPC Nederland BV

         Defendant: Gemeente Hilversum

         Questions referred

                  1.

                  Does a service consisting of the supply of free-to-air radio and television packages via cable, for the delivery of which both transmission costs and an amount relating to (charges for) payments made to broadcasters and copyright collecting societies in connection with the publication of their content are charged, fall within the scope of the new regulatory framework [for electronic communications networks]?

                  2.

                              (a)

                              Does the Municipality [of Hilversum], against the background of the liberalisation of the telecommunications sector and the objectives of the new regulatory framework, including a strict coordination and consultation process before a national regulatory authority acquires (exclusive) competence to intervene in retail tariffs by means of a measure such as price control, still have the power (task) to protect the general interest of its inhabitants by intervening in retail tariffs by means of a tariff-limiting clause?

                              (b)

                              If not, does the new regulatory framework preclude the Municipality from applying a tariff-limiting clause agreed in the context of the sale of its cable network operation?

                  3.

                  If Questions 2(a) and (b) are answered in the negative, the following question arises:
                  Is a public authority, such as the Municipality, in a situation such as that at issue here, (still) bound by loyalty to the European Union (‘Union loyalty’) if, in entering into and then applying the tariff-limiting clause, it is not performing a public duty but is acting in the context of a private-law competence (see also Question 6(a))?

                  4.

                  If the new regulatory framework is applicable and the Municipality is bound by Union loyalty:

                              (a)

                              Does the obligation of Union loyalty in conjunction with (the objectives of) the new regulatory framework, including a strict coordination and consultation process before a national regulatory authority can intervene in retail tariffs by means of a measure such as price control, preclude the Municipality from applying the tariff-limiting clause?

                              (b)

                              If not, is the answer to Question 4(a) different with regard to the period after the Commission, in its ‘letter of serious doubt’, expressed serious doubts about the compatibility of the price control proposed by [the Independent Post and Telecommunications Authority] OPTA with the objectives of the new regulatory framework as set out in Article 8 of the Framework Directive, and OPTA consequently abandoned that measure?

                  5.

                              (a)

                              Is Article 101 TFEU a provision relating to public policy, which means that the national court must apply that provision of its own motion beyond the ambit of the dispute within the meaning of Articles 24 and 25 of the Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering (Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure) (‘Rv’)?

                              (b)

                              If so, which of the facts that came to light during the proceedings would justify the national court proceeding of its own motion to examine the applicability of Article 101 TFEU? Is the national court bound to do so also if that examination might lead to the supplementation of facts within the meaning of Article 149 Rv, once the parties have been given an opportunity to comment?

                  6.

                  If Article 101 TFEU must be applied beyond the ambit of the dispute between the parties and having regard to (the objectives of) the new regulatory framework; the application thereof by OPTA and the European Commission; the alignment of concepts used in the new regulatory framework, such as significant market power and definition of the relevant markets, with similar concepts in European competition law, the following questions arise from the facts that have come to light during the proceedings:

                              (a)

                              Is the Municipality, in its sale of its cable network operation and its agreement to the tariff-limiting clause in that context, to be regarded as an undertaking within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU (see also Question 3)?

                              (b)

                              Is the tariff-limiting clause to be regarded as a hardcore restriction for the purposes of Article 101(1)(a) TFEU and as defined in Commission Notice 2001/C 368/07 on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition [under Article 81(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community] (de minimis) (1) (… point 11)? If so, is there thus an appreciable restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU? If not, is the answer affected by the circumstances mentioned in Question 6(d) (below)?

                              (c)

                              If the tariff-limiting clause is not a hardcore restriction, does it have an effect which restricts competition (purely) because:

                                          —

                                          the Netherlands competition authority has ruled that UPC has not abused its dominant position by virtue of the (higher) tariffs it charged for performing the same services as the supply of the basic package via cable, in the same market;

                                          —

                                          the Commission, in its letter of serious doubt, expressed serious doubts about the compatibility with the objectives set out in Article 8 of the Framework Directive of intervening (ex ante by means of price control) in retail tariffs for services such as UPC’s supply of the basic package via cable? Is the answer affected by the fact that OPTA abandoned the proposed price control as a result of the Commission’s letter?

                              (d)

                              Does the Agreement [on the future operation of the Hilversum cable network] containing the tariff-limiting clause appreciably restrict competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU (also) taking into account that:

                                          —

                                          under the new regulatory framework, UPC is considered to be an undertaking with significant market power (Commission Notice 2001/C 368/07, point 7);

                                          —

                                          virtually all Netherlands municipalities which, during the 1990s, sold their cable network operations to cable operators including UPC, retained powers under those agreements with regard to the pricing of the basic package (Commission Notice 2001/C 368/07, point 8)?

                              (e)

                              Must the Agreement containing the tariff-limiting clause be regarded as (being capable of) having an appreciable effect on inter-State trade within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU and as further defined in the Guidelines on the effect on trade concept contained in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2004 C 101, p. 81), given that:

                                          —

                                          under the new regulatory framework, UPC is considered to be an undertaking with significant market power;

                                          —

                                          OPTA has followed the European consultation procedure in order to take a price control measure in respect of services such as the supply of the basic package via cable by cable operators with significant market power such as UPC, a procedure which, under the new regulatory framework, must be followed if a proposed measure would affect trade between Member States;

                                          —

                                          the Agreement at that time represented a value of NLG 51 million (over EUR 23 million);

                                          —

                                          virtually all Netherlands municipalities which, during the 1990s, sold their cable network operations to cable operators including UPC, retained powers under those agreements with regard to the pricing of the basic package?

                  7.

                  Does the national court still have the power under Article 101(3) TFEU to declare a prohibition under Article 101(1) TFEU inapplicable in respect of the tariff-limiting clause, in the light of the new regulatory framework and the Commission’s serious doubts in its letter of serious doubt about the compatibility with the objectives of competition law of (ex ante) intervention in retail tariffs? Is the answer affected by the fact that OPTA abandoned the proposed price control as a result of the Commission’s letter?

                  8.

                  Does the European penalty of invalidity under Article 101(2) TFEU allow for some latitude in respect of its effects in terms of time having regard to the circumstances at the time of the conclusion of the Agreement (the beginning of the liberalisation of the telecommunications sector) and later developments in the telecommunications sector, including the entry into force of the new regulatory framework and the consequent serious objections expressed by the Commission against the introduction of price control?

         (1)  OJ 2001 C 368, p. 13.


title: Case C-70/13 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Getty Images (US) Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Descriptive character — Word mark PHOTOS.COM — Partial refusal of registration — Equal treatment — Obligation for OHIM to take into account its prior decision-making practice — Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/9

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — Getty Images (US) Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-70/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Descriptive character - Word mark PHOTOS.COM - Partial refusal of registration - Equal treatment - Obligation for OHIM to take into account its prior decision-making practice - Appeal partly manifestly inadmissible and partly manifestly unfounded))
   2014/C 102/11
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Getty Images (US) Inc. (represented by: P.G. Olson, advokat)

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

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) of 21 November 2012 in Case T-338/11 Getty Images v OHIM, by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment of Decision R 1831/2010-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 6 April 2011, rejecting the appeal brought against the examiner’s decision to partially refuse registration of the word mark ‘PHOTOS.COM’, for goods in classes 9, 42 and 45 — Article 7(1)(b) and (c), and Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Lack of distinctive character.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Getty Images (US) Inc. is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Case T-149/14: Action brought on 5 March 2014 — Anastasiou v Commission and ECB

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/31

         Action brought on 5 March 2014 — Anastasiou v Commission and ECB
   (Case T-149/14)
   2014/C 159/41
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Harry Anastasiou (Larnaca, Cyprus) (represented by: C. Paschalides, Solicitor, and A. Paschalides, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Central Bank and European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Order the defendants to compensate the applicant under Article 268 of the TFEU.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant contends that the defendants caused him to be deprived of the money in his account because they induced the premature imposition of a bail-in tool on his deposit with his bank as part of the conditionality attached to financial assistance provided to Cyprus on 26 April 2013 pursuant to Article 13 of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty of 2012 as follows: a) the defendants ‘manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits’ on their power as EU institutions under Article 136(3) of the TFEU; b) unlawfully surrendered effective control of their functions as EU institutions; c) induced the premature passing of a bail-in tool on deposits with Bank of Cyprus and Cyprus Popular Bank which had not been passed into the EU law; d) induced restrictions on the movement of money preventing deposit holders from withdrawing and/or transferring their funds to safer institutions; and e) did so in breach of the principles of legal certainty, equality and human rights.


title: Case C-405/11 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — European Commission v Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o., Republic of Poland (Appeal — State aid — Restructuring of the Polish steel industry — Concept of State aid — Recovery of public debts — Classification as State aid of the failure to request the liquidation of the debtor undertaking — Private creditor test — Allocation of the burden of proof — Limits of judicial review)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/8

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — European Commission v Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o., Republic of Poland
   (Case C-405/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Restructuring of the Polish steel industry - Concept of State aid - Recovery of public debts - Classification as State aid of the failure to request the liquidation of the debtor undertaking - Private creditor test - Allocation of the burden of proof - Limits of judicial review)
   2013/C 156/11
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: A. Stobiecka-Kuik and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Buczek Automotive sp. z o.o. (represented by: J. Jurczyk, radca prawny), Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Krasnodębska-Tomkiel, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) of 17 May 2011 in Case T-1/08 Buczek Automotive v Commission by which the General Court partially annulled Commission Decision 2008/344/EC of 23 October 2007 on State Aid C-23/06 (ex NN 35/06) which Poland has implemented for steel producer Technologie Buczek Group (OJ 2008 L 116, p. 26) — Classification as State aid of the failure to request the liquidation of the debtor undertaking — Error of law in the assessment of the Commission’s application of the hypothetical private creditor test and in the allocation of the burden of proof

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Order of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2000 in Case C-447/98 P: Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Community protection of designations of origin — Commission Regulation registering the designation "Altenburger Ziegenkäse" — Application for annulment — Inadmissibility — Appeal manifestly ill-founded)

text:
C 173/22                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
1.    Declares that,                                                         (J. L. Iglesias Buhigues and U. Wölker, assisted by B. Wägen-
                                                                             baur), supported by the French Republic (K. Rispal-Bellanger
      —     by failing to take all the measures necessary to ensure          and C. Vasak), Freistaat Thüringen, represented by
            that, within 10 years of the notification of Council             G. M. Berrisch, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
            Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning               in Luxembourg at the Chambers of G. Harles, 8-10 Rue
            the quality of bathing water, the quality of bathing water       Mathias Hardt and Molkerei und Weichkäserei K-H. Zimmer-
            conformed to the limit values set in accordance with the         mann GmbH, established in Falkenhain, (Germany), represent-
            directive, contrary to Article 4(1) thereof;                     ed by P. Lotze and S. Lehr, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                             for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Faltz, 6 Rue
      —     by failing to carry out sampling operations in line with         Heinrich Heine, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of
            the minimum frequency laid down in the Annex to                  V.Skouris, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
            Directive 76/160 in respect of inland bathing waters,            and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, R. Grass,
            contrary to Article 6(1), and                                    Registrar, made an order on 26 October 2000 the operative
                                                                             part of which is as follows:
      —     by failing to carry out sampling operations for the ‘total
            coliform’ parameter,
                                                                             1.     The appeal is dismissed;
      the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Articles 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Directive 76/160;                            2.     Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH and Bene Nahrungsmittel
                                                                                GmbH are ordered to pay the costs;
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             3.     The French Republic and the Freistaat Thüringen shall bear
(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                                their own costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 33 of 6 February 1999.
                     ORDER OF THE COURT
                         (Second Chamber)
                         of 26 October 2000
in Case C-447/98 P: Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH                                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
and Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Commission of the
                    European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
(Community protection of designations of origin — Com-
mission Regulation registering the designation ‘Altenburger
                                                                                of 15 December 2000
Ziegenkäse’ — Application for annulment — Inadmissibility
                — Appeal manifestly ill-founded)
                                                                             in Case C-86/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                           (2001/C 173/37)                                   the Consiglio di Stato): Questore Macerata v Claudio
                                                                                Peroni (1)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Question
                                                                             identical to a question on which the Court has already ruled)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2001/C 173/38)
In Case C-447/98 P, Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH, and
Bene Nahrungsmittel GmbH, both established in Altenburg
(Germany), represented by M. Lochschelder and T. Klingbell,                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
of the Cologne Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 4 rue Carlo Hemmer — appeal
against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Communities (Second Chamber) of 15 September 1998 in                                             in the European Court Reports)
Case T-109/97 Molkerei Grossbraunshain GmbH and Bene
Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Commission [1998] ECR II-3533,
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to the               In Case C-86/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities                    the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the the Consiglio di


title: Case T-34/05: Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Bayer CropScience AG, Makhteshim Agan Holding BV, Alfa Agricultural Supplies S.A. and Aragonesas Agro S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/31

         Action brought on 31 January 2005 by Bayer CropScience AG, Makhteshim Agan Holding BV, Alfa Agricultural Supplies S.A. and Aragonesas Agro S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-34/05)
   (2005/C 93/61)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 31 January 2005 by Bayer CropScience AG, established in Monheim (Germany), Makhteshim Agan Holding BV, established in Amsterdam (The Netherlands), Alfa Agricultural Supplies S.A. established in Athens (Greece) and Aragonesas Agro S.A. established in Madrid (Spain), represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the defendant has failed to comply with his obligations under Community law to review scientific data submitted by the applicants for the review of endosulfan under Directive 91/414/EEC and to grant them a due process during the review;

               —

               order the defendant to comply with his obligations under Community law and act as requested by the applicants by reviewing and considering all data submitted for the endosulfan review and by granting them a due process, including the right of defence and a fair hearing;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By letter dated 24 September 2004 the applicants requested the Commission to review scientific data submitted by the applicants to the evaluating authority for the review and authorisation, under Directive 91/414/EC (1), of endosulfan, the active substance of their plant protection product. They also asked to be allowed to address and respond to issues raised by the evaluators during the last stages of the review without any prior consultation with the applicants. By letter dated 26 November 2004 the Commission replied that its services were in the process of preparing a legislative proposal concerning the non-inclusion of endosulfan in Annex I of Directive 91/414. This will result in a ban on the use of this substance.
   In support of its application the applicants contend that by failing to review all pertinent and state-of-the-art data submitted by the applicants the Commission violated Articles 95 (3) and 152 (1) EC. They further claim that by failing to act on the applicants request the Commission violated the principle of sound administration enshrined in Article 211 EC as well as their rights of defence, the right to a fair hearing, the duty to provide a statement of reasons and the principle of equal treatment.
   The applicants further consider that the Commission's failure to review all the data they submitted neither achieves the desired objective of assessing the safety of plant protection products nor constitutes the least restrictive means to achieve such objectives, since the resulting decision not to include endosulfan in Annex I would cause it to be withdrawn from the EU market with irreparable commercial consequences for the applicants. On this basis the applicants consider the Commission violated the principles of proportionality, of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty. Finally, the applicants submit that by failing to act the Commission encroaches upon their right to conduct business activities and interferes with their right of property.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, OJ L 230, p. 1.


title: Opinion 1/03: Request by the Council of the European Union for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC

text:
26.4.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 101/1
                                                                          I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                      COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
Request by the Council of the European Union for an                          against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
           Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC                             European Communities (First Chamber, Extended Compo-
                                                                             sition) in Case T-92/98 Interporc v Commission [1999] ECR
                           (Opinion 1/03)                                    II-3521, seeking to have that judgment set aside in part, the
                                                                             other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
                          (2003/C 101/01)                                    European Communities (Agent: U. Wölker), the Court, compo-
                                                                             sed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet,
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has received                R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans, Presidents of Cham-
a request for an Opinion pursuant to Article 300(6) EC, lodged               bers, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
at the Court Registry on 10 March 2003 by the Council of the                 P. Jann, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
European Union, represented by J. Schutte and J.-P. Hix, acting              Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
as Agents.                                                                   given a judgment on 6 March 2003, in which it:
The Council of the European Union asks the Court of Justice                  1.    Dismisses the appeal;
to reply to the following question:
                                                                             2.    Orders Interporc Im- und Export GmbH to pay the costs.
Does conclusion of the new Lugano Convention on jurisdiction
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and                (1 ) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
commercial matters, as provided for at points 8 to 12 of this
document, fall entirely within the Community’s exclusive
competence or is competence shared between the Community
and the Member States?
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 6 March 2003                                                              of 6 March 2003
in Case C-41/00 P: Interporc Im- und Export GmbH v                           in Case C-240/00: Commission of the European Communi-
       Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                                             ties v Republic of Finland ( 1)
(Appeals — Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Access
                                                                             (Directive 79/409/EEC — Protection of wild birds and their
to documents — Documents held by the Commission and
                                                                                habitats — Special protection areas)
emanating from the Member States or third countries —
                          Authorship rule)
                                                                                (2003/C 101/03)
                          (2003/C 101/02)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                          in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-41/00 P, Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, estab-                     In Case C-240/00, Commission of the European Communities
lished in Hamburg (Germany), (Agent: G.M. Berrisch): Appeal                  (Agents: E. Paasivirta and R.B. Wainwright) v Republic of


title: Case T-192/12: Order of the General Court of 12 March 2014  — PAN Europe v Commission (Action for annulment — Environment — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1143/2011 approving the active substance prochloraz — Request for internal review — Refusal — Conditions to be satisfied by an organisation in order to be entitled to make a request for internal review — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/25

         Order of the General Court of 12 March 2014 — PAN Europe v Commission
   (Case T-192/12) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Environment - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1143/2011 approving the active substance prochloraz - Request for internal review - Refusal - Conditions to be satisfied by an organisation in order to be entitled to make a request for internal review - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   2014/C 159/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J. Rutteman, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, P. Oliver and P. Ondrůšek, and, subsequently, P. Ondrůšek, J. Tomkin and L. Pignataro-Nolin, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s Decision of 9 March 2012 rejecting as inadmissible the request made by the applicant for review by the Commission of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1143/2011 of 10 November 2011 approving the active substance prochloraz, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011 and Commission Decision 2008/934/EC (OJ 2011 L 293, p. 26)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 30.6.2012.


title: Case C-414/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 August 2010 — Société Veleclair v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la réforme de l’État

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 19 August 2010 — Société Veleclair v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la réforme de l’État
   (Case C-414/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/13
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Veleclair

      Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics et de la réforme de l’État

      Question referred

   Does Article 17(2)(b) of the Sixth Directive (1) permit a Member State to make the right to deduct value added tax on importation conditional, regard being had in particular to the risk of tax evasion, upon the actual payment of that tax by the taxable person, where the taxable person for the purposes of value added tax on importation and the holder of the corresponding right to deduction are, as in France, the same person?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).