title: Action brought on 14 July 1998 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-255/98)

text:
C 278/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.9.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Commission considers that the principles developed
by the case-law cited in its claim apply to professions and
situations which fall within the scope of general system'          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
Directives or sectorial' Directives but in which the               those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit prescribed for
conditions needing to be fulfilled under those Directives in        the transposition of the Directive expired on 1 February
order to enjoy recognition have not been complied with.             1997.
Even where a Directive concerning the mutual recognition
of diplomas does not apply, the Member States are obliged
to ensure freedom of movement for migrant workers,                  (1) OJ L 196, 7.8.1996, p. 8.
                                                                    (2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.
whether they are employed or self-employed. It would be
inconsistent for Directives which are designed to provide
for mutual recognition to have a restrictive effect on
freedom of establishment by denying a Community
national holding a diploma which does not fulfil the
conditions laid down by those Directives the possibility of
relying on the Vlassopoulou case-law when he could
certainly have done so in the absence of such Directives.           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste
                                                                    Gerichtshof, Austria by judgment of that court of 30 June
                                                                    1998 in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren
(1) Judgment of 15 October 1987 in Case 222/86 Heylens [1987]             Wettbewerb against TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH
    ECR p. 4097.
(2) Judgment of 7 May 1991 in Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou                                    (Case C-254/98)
    [1991] ECR I-2357.                                                                        (98/C 278/43)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by judgment of the Oberste
                                                                    Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, received at the
                                                                    Court Registry on 13 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling
Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the             in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium               against TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH on the following
                                                                    question:
                       (Case C-253/98)
                        (98/C 278/42)
                                                                    Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                                                                    precluding legislation under which bakers, butchers and
                                                                    grocers may not offer for sale on rounds from locality to
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                locality or from door to door goods which they are
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities             entitled to sell under the terms of their trading licence
on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European                   unless they also carry on their trade from fixed business
Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal                     premises situated in the administrative district in which
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting           they offer the goods for sale in the abovementioned
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             manner or in a municipality adjacent thereto, and
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,               furthermore may offer for sale on rounds from locality to
Kirchberg.                                                          locality or from door to door only such goods as are also
                                                                    offered for sale at the said fixed business premises?
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           Action brought on 14 July 1998 by the Kingdom of Spain
     and administrative measures necessary in order to                 against the Commission of the European Communities
     comply with Commission Directive 96/40/EC of                                           (Case C-255/98)
     25 June 1996 establishing a common model for an
     identity card for inspectors carrying out port State                                     (98/C 278/44)
     control (1), alternatively by failing within the
     prescribed time limit to communicate the measures
     necessary to comply therewith, the Kingdom of                  An action against the Commission of the European
     Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
     Article 2 of that Directive and under the EC Treaty,           the European Communities on 14 July 1998 by the
 ---pagebreak--- 5.9.98                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 278/25
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Santiago Ortiz                           Action brought on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an                        European Communities against the French Republic
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish                                                   (Case C-256/98)
Embassy, 4Ð6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
                                                                                (98/C 278/45)
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                          15 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Ð annul Commission Decision 98/324/EC (1) on the
                                                                          Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
     clearance of the accounts in respect of the expenditure
                                                                          Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a national
     for 1997 of the Guarantee Section of the European
                                                                          civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, as regards
                                                                          Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     the financial adjustment imposed on Spain, and
                                                                          office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                          that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          Ð declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative measures necessary in
Ð Infringement of essential procedural requirements and                        order to comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
     lack of a statement of reasons:                                           21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
                                                                               and of wild fauna and flora (1), in that it has omitted
                                                                               to take the measures necessary in order to comply
     The contested Decision cannot incorporate a financial                     with Article 6 of that Directive, the French Republic
     adjustment since it was issued at the stage of clearance                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive
     of accounts (Article 5(2)(b) of Council Regulation                        and under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the
     (EEC) No 729/70 (2) and not at the stage of                               EC Treaty,
     verification of compliance (Article 5(2)(c) of
     Regulation (EEC) No 729/70). Only at the latter stage                Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     is it appropriate to verify whether the expenditure
     incurred is in conformity with the Community
     provisions. Any financial adjustment made otherwise                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     than in connection with the clearance of accounts
     which is a preliminary to it is void through failure to
     follow the correct clearance procedure laid down in                  The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
     Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (3).                           those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit prescribed by
     Moreover, although the Kingdom of Spain has learned                  Article 23 of the Directive for its transposition expired on
     why the Commission doubted the correctness of a                      5 June 1994.
     particular budgetary item, it has been unable to
     ascertain why the Commission rejected the                            (1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
     explanations offered by the Kingdom of Spain.                        (2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.
Ð Infringement of the applicable Community law:
     The calculation made by the Spanish authorities is                   Appeal brought on 15 July 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni
     correct and is in conformity with the applicable                     against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by
     Council Regulation (EC) No 150/95 (4) and                            the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
     Commission Regulations (EC) No 157/95 (5) and (EC)                   the European Communities in Case T-165/95 between
     No 158/95 (6).                                                       Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
(1 ) OJ L 141, 13.5.1998, p. 38.                                                                  (Case C-257/98 P)
(2)  Official Journal, English special Edition 1970 I, p. 218.
(3)  OJ L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6.
                                                                                (98/C 278/46)
(4)  OJ L 22, 31.1.1995, p. 1.
(5)  OJ L 24, 1.2.1995, p. 1.
(6)  OJ L 24, 1.2.1995, p. 4.                                             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
                                                                          1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities in Case T-165/95
                                                                          between Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the


title: Case C-396/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bari (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2009 — Interedil Srl, in liquidation v Fallimento Interedil Srl, Banca Intesa Gestione Crediti Spa

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Bari (Italy) lodged on 12 October 2009 — Interedil Srl, in liquidation v Fallimento Interedil Srl, Banca Intesa Gestione Crediti Spa
   (Case C-396/09)
   2009/C 312/35
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Bari

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Interedil Srl, in liquidation

      Defendant: Fallimento Interedil Srl, Banca Intesa Gestione Crediti Spa

      Question(s) referred

               1.

               Is the concept of ‘the centre of a debtor’s main interests’ in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 (1) to be interpreted in accordance with Community law or national law, and, if the former, how is that concept to be defined and what are the decisive factors or considerations for the purpose of identifying the ‘centre of main interests’?

               2.

               Can the presumption laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000, according to which ‘‘[i]n the case of a company. the place of the registered office shall be presumed to be the centre of its main interests in the absence of proof to the contrary’, be rebutted if it is established that the company carries on genuine business activity in a State other than that in which it has its registered office, or is it necessary, in order for the presumption to be deemed rebutted, to establish that the company has not carried on any business activity in the State in which it has its registered office?

               3.

               If a company has, in a Member State other than that in which it has its registered office, immovable property, a lease agreement concluded by the debtor company with another company in respect of two hotel complexes, and a contract with a banking institution, are these sufficient factors or considerations to rebut the presumption laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 that the place of the company’s ‘registered office’ is the centre of its main interests and are such circumstances sufficient for the company to be regarded as having an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 1346/2000?

               4.

               If the ruling on jurisdiction by the Corte di Cassazione in the aforementioned Order No 10606/2005 is based on an interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation No 1346/2000 which is at variance with that of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, is the application of that provision of Community law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, precluded by Article 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure, according to which rulings on jurisdiction by the Corte di Cassazione are final and binding?’

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 160, p. 1


title: Case C-446/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court dated 13 October 2004, in the case of Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation against Commissioners of Inland Revenue

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of that court dated 13 October 2004, in the case of Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation against Commissioners of Inland Revenue
   (Case C-446/04)
   (2005/C 6/51)
   Language of procedure: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 13 October 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 22 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation and Commissioners of Inland Revenue on the following questions:

               1.

               Is it contrary to Article 43 or 56 EC for a Member State to keep in force and apply measures which exempt from corporation tax dividends received by a company resident in that Member State (‘the resident company’) from other resident companies and which subject dividends received by the resident company from companies resident in other Member States (‘non-resident companies’) to corporation tax (after giving double taxation relief for any withholding tax payable on the dividend and, under certain conditions, for the underlying tax paid by the non-resident companies on their profits in their country of residence)?

               2.

               Where a Member State has a system which in certain circumstances imposes advance corporation tax (‘ACT’) on the payment of dividends by a resident company to its shareholders and grants a tax credit to shareholders resident in that Member State in respect of those dividends, is it contrary to Article 43 or 56 EC or Article 4(1) or 6 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) for the Member State to keep in force and apply measures which provide for the resident company to pay dividends to its shareholders without being liable to pay ACT to the extent that it has received dividends from companies resident in that Member State (either directly or indirectly through other companies resident in that Member State) and do not provide for the resident company to pay dividends to its shareholders without being liable to pay ACT to the extent that it has received dividends from non-resident companies?

               3.

               Is it contrary to the provisions of EC law referred to in Question 2 above for the Member State to keep in force and apply measures which provide for the ACT liability to be set against the liability of the dividend-paying company, and that of other companies in the group resident in that Member State, to corporation tax in that Member State upon their profits:

                           a.

                           but which do not provide for any form of set off of the ACT liability or some equivalent relief (such as the refund of ACT) in respect of profits earned, whether in that State or in other Member States, by companies in the group which are not residents in that Member State; and/or

                           b.

                           which provide that any double tax relief which a company resident in that Member State enjoys reduces the liability to corporation tax against which the ACT liability can be set?

               4.

               Where the Member State has measures which in certain circumstances provide for resident companies, if they so elect, to recover the ACT paid on distributions to their shareholders to the extent that distributions are received by the resident companies from non resident companies (including for this purpose companies resident in third countries), is it contrary to Article 43 or 56 EC or Article 4(1) or 6 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC for those measures:

                           a.

                           to oblige the resident companies to pay ACT and to reclaim it subsequently; and

                           b.

                           not to provide for the shareholders of the resident companies to receive a tax credit which they would have received on a dividend from a resident company which had not itself received dividends from non- resident companies?

               5.

               Where, prior to 31 December 1993, a Member State adopted the measures outlined in Questions 1 and 2, and after that date it adopted the further measures outlined in Question 4, and if the latter measures constitute a restriction prohibited by Article 56 of the EC Treaty, is that restriction to be taken to be a new restriction not already existing on the 31 December 1993?

               6.

               In the event of any of the measures set out in Questions 1 to 5 being in breach of any of the Community provisions referred to herein, then in circumstances where the resident company or other companies in the same group of companies make the following claims in respect of the relevant breaches:

                           (i)

                           a claim for the repayment of corporation tax unlawfully levied in the circumstances to which Question 1 relates;

                           (ii)

                           a claim for the reinstatement (or compensation for the loss) of reliefs applied against the corporation tax unlawfully levied in the circumstances to which Question 1 relates;

                           (iii)

                           a claim for repayment of (or compensation for) ACT which could not be set off against the company's corporation tax liability or otherwise relieved and which would not have been paid (or would have been relieved) but for the breach;

                           (iv)

                           a claim, where the ACT has been set off against corporation tax, for loss of use of money between the date of payment of the ACT and such set-off;

                           (v)

                           a claim for repayment of corporation tax paid by the company or by another group company where any of those companies incurred a corporation tax liability by disclaiming other reliefs in order to allow its ACT liability to be set off against its corporation tax liability (the limits imposed on set-off of ACT resulting in a residual corporation tax liability);

                           (vi)

                           a claim for loss of use of money due to corporation tax having been paid earlier than would otherwise have been the case or for reliefs subsequently lost in the circumstances set out in (v) above;

                           (vii)

                           a claim by the resident company for payment of (or compensation for) surplus ACT which that company has surrendered to another company in the group and which remained unrelieved when that other company was sold, demerged or went into liquidation;

                           (viii)

                           a claim, where ACT has been paid but subsequently reclaimed under the provisions described in Question 4, for loss of use of money between the date of payment of the ACT and the date on which it was reclaimed;

                           (ix)

                           a claim for compensation where the resident company elected to reclaim the ACT under the arrangements described in Question 4 and compensated its shareholders for the inability to receive a tax credit by increasing the amount of the dividend,

                     in respect of each of those claims set out above, is it to be regarded as:

                           a claim for repayment of sums unduly levied which arise as a consequence of, and adjunct to, the breach of the abovementioned Community provisions; or

                           a claim for compensation or damages such that the conditions set out in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame must be satisfied; or

                           a claim for payment of an amount representing a benefit unduly denied?

               7.

               In the event that the answer to any part of Question 6 is that the claim is a claim for payment of an amount representing a benefit unduly denied:

                           (a)

                           is such a claim a consequence of, and an adjunct to, the right conferred by the abovementioned Community provisions; or

                           (b)

                           must the conditions for recovery laid down in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame be satisfied; or

                           (c)

                           must some other conditions be met?

               8.

               Does it make any difference to the answers to Questions 6 or 7 whether as a matter of domestic law the claims referred to in Question 6 are brought as restitutionary claims or are brought or have to be brought as claims for damages?

               9.

               What guidance, if any, does the Court of Justice think it appropriate to provide in the present case as to which circumstances the national court ought to take into consideration when it comes to determine whether there is a sufficiently serious breach within the meaning of the judgment in Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur and Factortame, in particular as to whether, given the state of the case law of the Court of Justice on the interpretation of the relevant Community provisions, the breach was excusable or as to whether in any particular case there is a sufficient causal link to constitute a ‘direct causal link’ within the meaning of that judgment?

      (1)  Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (OJ L 225, 20.8.1990, p. 6).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 28 August 1997 in the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v. (1) Beck Liegenschaftsverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and (2) Bergdorf Wohnbau Gesellschaft mbH in liquidation, Dr Karl Hacker intervening (Case C-355/97)

text:
6 . 12 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 370/3
of applicable Community law to be interpreted as                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
preventing a Member State from restricting the transport                Miinchen by order of that court of 17 September 1997 in
of animals for slaughter in that animals may be                         the case of Molkereigenossenschaft Wiedergeltingen eG v.
transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable                                   Hauptzollamt Lindau
abattoir in that State, and may be transported for                                                (Case C-356/97)
slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are                                                 ( 97/C 370/05 )
observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of              European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway ?                       Miinchen ( Finance Court, Munich ) of 17 September 1997,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 16 October 1997, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Molkereigenossenschaft
                                                                        Wiedergeltingen eG v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs
                                                                        Office ) Lindau on the following question :
                                                                        is the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( 2 ) of Commission
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster                    Regulation ( EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 ( OJ L 57,
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 28 August               10 . 3 . 1993 , p. 12 ), relating to the imposition of penalties
1997 in the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der                     on dairies ( purchasers of milk ), valid ?
Tiroler Landesregierung v. ( 1 ) Beck Liegenschaftsverwal
tungsgesellschaft mbH and (2 ) Bergdorf Wohnbau
Gesellschaft mbH in liquidation, Dr Karl Hacker
                               intervening
                          ( Case C-355 /97 )                            Action brought on 21 October 1997 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
                            ( 97/C 370/04 )
                                                                                ( Case C-357/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/06 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberster                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Gerichtshof ( Supreme Court ), Austria , of 28 August 1997,             Justice of the European Communities on 21 October 1997
which was received at the Court Registry on 15 October                  by the Commission of the European Communities,
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Landesgrund              represented by Mr Pieter Jan Kuijper, legal adviser, acting
verkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v. ( 1 ) Beck              as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Liegenschaftsverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and ( 2 ) Bergdorf             office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, a member of its
Wohnbau Gesellschaft mbH in liquidation, Dr Karl                        Legal Service , Centre Wagner, Luxembourg.
Hacker intervening, on the following question:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
is Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of                   a ) find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of                        under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments                        regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
to the Treaties on which the European Union is                               comply with Council Directive 92/29 (') of 31 March
founded ('), which provides that notwithstanding the                         1992 concerning the minimum safety and health
obligations under the treaties on which the European                         requirements for improved medical treatment on
Union is founded the Republic of Austria may maintain its                    board vessels and/or by failing to inform the
existing legislation regarding secondary residences for five                 Commission thereof; and
years from the date of accession (1 January 1995 ),
to be interpreted as meaning that the transitional                      b ) condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure .
provisions in Paragraph 40 ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) of the Tiroler
Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 ( Landesgesetzblatt fur Tirol                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
No 61 /1996 ), which entered into force on 1 October
1996 , fall within the definition of existing legislation,              Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
or are those provisions to be regarded as new                           be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
legislation if, as a result of decisions of the Austrian                Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Verfassungsgerichtshof, the provisions of previous Tirol                Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
laws on the sale of land were not applicable in the                     down in the directive . That period expired on
present case ?                                                          31 December 1994 without Ireland having enacted the
                                                                        provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
                                                                        to in the conclusions of the Commission .
(') OJ C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994 , p . 1 .
                                                                        (') OJ L 113 , 30 . 4 . 1992 , p . 19 .


title: Case C-361/13: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 — European Commission v Slovak Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Regulation No 883/2004 — Article 7 — Old-age benefit — Christmas bonus — Residence requirement)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 September 2015 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-361/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Regulation No 883/2004 - Article 7 - Old-age benefit - Christmas bonus - Residence requirement))
   (2015/C 371/02)
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár, D. Martin and F. Schatz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Slovak Republic (represented by: B. Ricziová, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-295/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — H, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of G.T. GmbH v H.K. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State in which insolvency proceedings have been opened for an action in respect of insolvency against a defendant domiciled in a non-member State — Action brought against the managing director of a company for reimbursement of payments made after that company has become insolvent or after it has been established that its liabilities exceed its assets)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — H, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of G.T. GmbH v H.K.
   (Case C-295/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State in which insolvency proceedings have been opened for an action in respect of insolvency against a defendant domiciled in a non-member State - Action brought against the managing director of a company for reimbursement of payments made after that company has become insolvent or after it has been established that its liabilities exceed its assets))
   (2015/C 046/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Darmstadt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: H, acting as liquidator in the insolvency of G.T. GmbH

      Defendant: H.K.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding a company’s assets have been opened have jurisdiction, on the basis of that provision, to hear and determine an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, brought by the liquidator in the insolvency proceedings against the managing director of that company for reimbursement of payments made after the company became insolvent or after it had been established that the company’s liabilities exceeded its assets.

               2)

               Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in the territory of which insolvency proceedings regarding a company’s assets have been opened have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, brought by the liquidator in the insolvency proceedings against the managing director of that company for reimbursement of payments made after the company became insolvent or after it had been established that the company’s liabilities exceeded its assets, where the managing director is domiciled not in another Member State but, as is the situation in the main proceedings, in a contracting party to the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007, which was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case C-484/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — First and Sixth VAT directives — Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality — Rules concerning rounding of amounts of VAT — Rounding down per item)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-484/06) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - First and Sixth VAT directives - Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality - Rules concerning rounding of amounts of VAT - Rounding down per item)
   (2008/C 223/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fiscale eenheid Koninklijke Ahold NV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 11A(1)(a), Article 22(3)(b), first sentence, and Article 22(5) 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and Article 2, first and second paragraphs, of First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14) — Rules on the rounding off of amounts of value added tax
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In the absence of specific Community legislation, it is for Member States to decide on the rules and methods of rounding amounts of the tax on added value, but those States must, when making that decision, observe the principles underpinning the common system of that tax, in particular the principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality;

               2.

               Community law, as it now stands, entails no specific obligation for Member States to permit taxable persons to round down per item the amount of the tax on added value.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-100/06: Action brought on 26 July 2007 — Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v OHIM — Artoz-Papier (ATOZ)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/12

         Action brought on 26 July 2007 — Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v OHIM — Artoz-Papier (ATOZ)
   (Case T-100/06)
   (2007/C 235/21)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Deepak Rajani (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Dustmann, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artoz-Papier AG (Lenzburg, Switzerland)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 January 2006 (case R 1126/2004-2)

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Deepak Rajani

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘ATOZ’ for services in classes 35 and 41 — application No 1 319 961

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Artoz-Papier AG

      Mark or sign cited: The international and national word mark ‘ARTOZ’ for services in classes 35 and 41

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant alleges that the contested decision was rendered in violation of Article 43(2) and (3) of the CTMR insofar as it adopted an undue interpretation of the trademark's registration term. According to the applicant such ultra vires interpretation of Community, national and international laws amounts to a misuse of power. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Board's decision is in breach of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR. Finally, the applicant contends that both the opposition division and the Board of Appeal have substantially infringed the procedural safeguards of Articles 73 and 79 of the CTMR due to an alleged lack of reasoning and a violation of the right to be heard.


title: Case C-83/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Zellstoff Stendal GmbH, Federal Republic of Germany, Land Sachsen-Anhalt (Appeal — State aid — Article 88(2) and (3) EC — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Decision not to raise any objections — Action for annulment — Conditions for admissibility — Pleas in law that may be relied upon in an action for annulment — Notion of ‘interested party’ — Competitive link — Assignment — Market for supply)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/5

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 24 May 2011 — European Commission v Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Zellstoff Stendal GmbH, Federal Republic of Germany, Land Sachsen-Anhalt
   (Case C-83/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Article 88(2) and (3) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Decision not to raise any objections - Action for annulment - Conditions for admissibility - Pleas in law that may be relied upon in an action for annulment - Notion of ‘interested party’ - Competitive link - Assignment - Market for supply)
   2011/C 204/09
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross and V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Kronoply GmbH & Co. KG, Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: R. Nierer and L. Gordalla, Rechtsanwälte), Zellstoff Stendal GmbH (represented by: T. Müller-Ibold and K. Karl, Rechtsanwälte), Federal Republic of Germany, Land Sachsen-Anhalt

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of 10 December 2008 in Case T-388/02 Kronoply and Kronotex v Commission inasmuch as the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) held admissible (albeit ultimately unfounded) an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2002 to raise no objections in relation to the aid granted by the German authorities in favour of Zellstoff Stendal for the construction of a production plant for pulp — Incorrect assessment of the conditions for the admissibility of an action for annulment of a Commission decision based on Article 88(3) EC, brought by a party concerned within the meaning of Article 88(2) EC

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission and Zellstoff Stendal GmbH to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case T-279/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Central Bank (ECB) (Public service contracts — Community public procurement procedure — Supply of consultancy and IT development services for the ECB — Rejection of a tender and decision to award the contract to other tenderers — Action for annulment — Interest in bringing proceedings — Ground for exclusion — Permit to be issued by a national authority — Action in part manifestly unfounded in law and in part manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               26.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/15

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v European Central Bank (ECB)
   (Case T-279/06) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Community public procurement procedure - Supply of consultancy and IT development services for the ECB - Rejection of a tender and decision to award the contract to other tenderers - Action for annulment - Interest in bringing proceedings - Ground for exclusion - Permit to be issued by a national authority - Action in part manifestly unfounded in law and in part manifestly inadmissible)
   2009/C 233/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and G. Gruber, agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the ECB’s decision of 31 July 2006 rejecting the offer made by the applicant in the negotiated procedure for the supply of consultancy and IT development services for the ECB and the decision to award the contract to other tenderers.

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294 of 2.12.2006.


title: Action brought on 18 February 1995 by Société Lafarge Coppée against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-43/95)

text:
No C 119/14            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                                13 . 5 . 95
     2. Incorrect analysis of the applicant's market                               with the fact that the Commission chose to
          conduct: in forming the view that the applicant was                      incriminate only a selection of European cement
          involved in an agreement to limit transhipments of                       producers. The applicant also takes the view that
          cement between France and Germany, the                                   the Commission could not, without contradicting
          Commission was guilty of a manifest error in                             itself, define the geographical reference market as
          interpretation of the facts.                                              being both local and European at the same time.
                                                                         II. Manifest error of assessment: the applicant submits
                                                                              that the complaints upheld against it — regarded by the
                                                                              Commission as the application of a general agreement
                                                                              — are either non-existent or without relation to the
Action brought on 17 February 1995 by Société Ciments
                                                                              applicant and, in any event, unconnected to a general
Français SA against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                       agreement. The applicant also takes the view that the
                                                                              evidence which ostensibly establishes the existence of a
                         (Case T-39/95 )                                      general agreement to 'respect home markets' is
                           ( 95/C 119/34 )                                    manifestly inadequate.
                 (Language of the case: Frencb)                         III. Breach of the principles of non-discrimination and
                                                                              proportionality, along with breach of the principles of
An action against the Commission of the European                              sound administration and the protection of legitimate
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             expectations.
Instance of the European Communities on 17 February
1995 by Société Ciments Français SA, having its registered              IV. In the alternative, the applicant submits that the fines
office in Paris ( France ), represented by Antoine Winckler, of               imposed on it should be reduced substantially. It takes
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                   the view that the Commission :
the Chambers of Elvinger & Hoss, 15 Côte d'Eich.
                                                                              1 , committed manifest errors in its calculation;
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                              2 , failed properly to take account of the gravity of the
— annul the Commission decision of 30 November                                     alleged infringements and on that ground
     1994,                                                                         committed a serious breach of the principle of
                                                                                proportionality;
— in the alternative, reduce the fines imposed,
                                                                              3 , chose an incorrect relevant market as the basis for
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                          calculating the fine .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following
pleas in law:
                                                                        Action brought on 18 February 1995 by Société Lafarge
  I.  Procédural defects :                                                   Coppée against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
      1 . Breach of the right to a fair hearing. The applicant
                                                                                (Case T-43/95 )
           submits that there has been a failure to comply with
           the principle that all parties should be heard in                                          ( 95/C 119/35 )
           administrative proceedings: first, on the ground of
           non-communication          or   absence     of  details                        (Language of tbe case: French)
           connecting individuals to certain fundamental
           complaints; second, on the ground that there was
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
           no full access to the file documents; and, finally, by
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
           reason of the restrictions imposed on the
                                                                        Instance of the European Communities on 18 February
           applicant's opportunity to set out its view
                                                                        1 995 by Société Lafarge Coppée, having its registered office
           regarding the complaints finally upheld against
           it.
                                                                        in Paris ( France ), represented by Henry Lesguillons, of the
                                                                        Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      2 . The Advisory Committee was not called to                      Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
           comment on the exact amount of the fines
           envisaged by the Commission.                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
      3 . Failure to state reasons. The applicant points out in        — annul the Commission Decision of 30 November 1994
           this regard that the theory of a 'single and                     in its entirety, or at least Articles 1 , 3 ( 1 ) ( a ) and 3 ( 3 ) ( a ),
           continuous agreement' involving practically the                  4 ( 1 ), 4 ( 2 ), 4 ( 3 ) ( a ), 4 (4 ) (e ) and 4 (4 ) ( f), 6 and 7
           entire European cement industry is directly at odds              thereof,
 ---pagebreak---  13 . 5 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 119/15
— in the alternative, set aside or at least reduce the fines           The applicant claims that the Court should:
      imposed pursuant to Articles 9.22 and 10.3 of the
      Decision,                                                        — annual the Decision of the Commission 94/815/EC
                                                                            (IV/33.126 and 33.322 ) of 30 November 1994 relating
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                  to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty 0 ), at
                                                                           least in so far as concerns the applicant,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       — in the alternative, annul or reduce the fine imposed on
The applicant seeks annulment of the Decision on the                       it,
following grounds:
                                                                       — in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs of the
1 . Breach of the right to a fair hearing by reason of                     proceedings and to reimburse to the applicant the costs
      procedural irregularities committed both at the time of              and interest incurred in respect of the security lodged,
      adoption of the international complaints and severance               either in their entirety or in so far as they relate to the
      of the national complaints .                                         fine, if reduced .
2 . Breach of Article 85 of the EC Treaty resulting from               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      manifest errors of assessment relating both to the global
      context of the alleged agreement and the definition of           The applicant relies on the following grounds in support of
      the market at issue .                                            its application:
3 . Breach of Article 85 of the EC Treaty in so far as the               I. Breach of essential procedural requirements :
      Commission committed manifest errors of assessment in
      respect of the infringements found against the applicant                ( a ) In the stages prior to the adoption of the
      relating to :                                                                 Decision :
      — involvement in the 'Cembureau principle',                                   — failure to notify to the applicant the documents
                                                                                on which the Commission based its Statement
      — involvement in the ' Greek problem',                                            of Objections,
      — involvement on the Export Committees,                                       — failure to identify to whom the Statement of
                                                                                Objections is addressed,
      — involvement in bilateral application measures,
                                                                                — breach of the principle of immediacy;
      — involvement on the White Cement Committee .
                                                                              ( b ) In the adoption of the Decision:
In the alternative, the applicant seeks:
                                                                                — formulation of new objections and
1 , annulment of the fines for breach of Article 190 of the
                                                                                amendment of previous ones; inconsistency
      EC Treaty, Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 and                            with a previous decision,
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 2988/74;
                                                                                — infringement of the applicant's right of
2 , reduction of the amount of the fines on the ground of                               defence; the new objections raised which
      infringement of the principles of proportionality,                                were not contained in the Statement of
      protection of legitimate expectations and non                                    Objections,
      discrimination .
                                                                                — erroneous authentication of the Decision,
                                                                                — use of statements submitted by the parties in
                                                                                their defence to support arguments against
                                                                                them and against other parties which had not
Action brought on 21 February 1995 by Unicem SpA                                        been given the opportunity to reply to them,
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                          ( Case T-50/95                                            — Decision addressed to the wrong persons:
                            ( 95/C 119/36 )                                             breach of the principle of equal treatment and
                                                                                of the applicant's rights of defence,
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                                    — failure to specify the duration of the
                                                                                infringements alleged in the Decision.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       II. Insufficient statement of reasons, breach of rules of law
Instance of the European Communities on 21 February                           and erroneous assessment of the evidence as regards:
1995 by Unicem SpA, whose registered office is in Turin
( Italy), represented by Grande Stevens, of the Turin Bar,                    ( a ) the definition of the relevant market;
Magrone Osti of the Rome Bar, and Gandini, of the Turin
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                         ( b) the alleged 'Cembureau Agreement' limiting
Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.                                             national markets;


title: Case F-77/12: Action brought on 23 July 2012 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/18

         Action brought on 23 July 2012 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-77/12)
   2012/C 319/32
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: R. Nedin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests in the context of the EPSO/AD/208/11 competition.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the implicit decision to reject the complaint of 18 January 2012 and of the decision of the competition jury of 10 May 2012, because they infringe the principles of equal treatment and equal opportunities, and the removal of the legal consequences of the contested decisions.


title: Case F-117/07: Action brought on 25 October 2007 — Kolountzios v Commission

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/48

         Action brought on 25 October 2007 — Kolountzios v Commission
   (Case F-117/07)
   (2007/C 315/93)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Kolountzios (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 11 May 2007 rejecting the applicant's request for the calculation of his entitlement to pension rights acquired, before his entry into service, in drachmas with the Greek pension bodies TMSEDE and ELPP by applying the updated average rate of exchange fixed by the Commission to take account of the drachma's fluctuations during the period of contribution;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant, an official in step 4 of Grade AD 12, invokes three pleas in law, the first of which alleges the illegality of the General Provisions for Implementing Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations (and more particularly of Article 7(3)), and, if need be, the illegality of that provision of those regulations.
   The second plea in law alleges breach of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1103/97 of 17 June 1997 on certain provisions relating to the introduction of the euro (OJ 1997 L 162, p. 1).
   The third plea in law alleges breach of the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and non-discrimination.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 1999 in Case C-354/97 Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 93/74/EEC, 94/28/EC, 94/39/EC, 95/9/EC and 95/10/EC)

text:
C 100/6              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.4.1999
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the periods
                                                                         prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative
                      (First Chamber)                                    provisions necessary to comply with:
                    of 9 February 1999
                                                                         Ð Council Directive 93/74/EEC of 13 September
in   Case    C-354/97 Commission of the European
                                                                             1993 on feedingstuffs intended for particular
             Communities v. French Republic (1)
                                                                             nutritional purposes,
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
Directives 93/74/EEC, 94/28/EC, 94/39/EC, 95/9/EC and                    Ð Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994
                         95/10/EC)                                           laying down the principles relating to the
                      (1999/C 100/08)                                        zootechnical      and     genealogical      conditions
                                                                             applicable to imports from third countries of
                                                                             animals, their semen, ova and embryos, and
               (Language of the case: French)                                amending Directive 77/504/EEC on pure-bred
                                                                             breeding animals of the bovine species,
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                        Ð Commission Directive 94/39/EC of 25 July 1994
                                                                             establishing a list of intended uses of animal
                                                                             feedingstuffs for particular nutritional purposes,
In Case C-354/97: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Xavier Lewis) v. French Republic                     Ð Commission Directive 95/9/EC of 7 April 1995
(Agents: Kareen Rispal-Bellanger and Christina Vasak) Ð                      amending Directive 94/39/EC, and
Application for a declaration that, by failing to bring into
force within the periods prescribed the laws, regulations                Ð Commission Directive 95/10/EC of 7 April 1995
and administrative provisions Ð including, where                             fixing the method of calculating the energy value
appropriate, sanctions Ð necessary to comply with:                           of dog and cat food intended for particular
                                                                             nutritional purposes,
Ð Council Directive 93/74/EEC of 3 September 1993 on
    feedingstuffs intended for particular nutritional                    the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    purposes (OJ L 237, 22.9.1993, p. 23),                               under Article 12 of Directive 93/74/EEC, Article 13 of
                                                                         Directive 94/28/EC, Article 2 of Directive 94/39/EC,
                                                                         Article 2 of Directive 95/9/EC and Article 3 of
Ð Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994 laying
                                                                         Directive 95/10/EC;
    down the principles relating to the zootechnical and
    genealogical conditions applicable to imports from
    third countries of animals, their semen, ova and                2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
    embryos, and amending Directive 77/504/EEC on
    pure-bred breeding animals of the bovine species (OJ            (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
    L 178, 12.7.1994, p. 66),
Ð Commission Directive 94/39/EC of 25 July 1994
    establishing a list of intended uses of animal
    feedingstuffs for particular nutritional purposes (OJ
    L 207, 10.8.1994, p. 20),
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Ð Commission Directive 95/9/EC of 7 April 1995                                              (First Chamber)
    amending Directive 94/39/EC (OJ L 91, 22.4.1995,                                      of 9 February 1999
    p. 35), and
                                                                    in Case C-383/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                    the Amtsgericht Nordhorn): Criminal proceedings against
Ð Commission Directive 95/10/EC of 7 April 1995 fixing                                 Arnoldus van der Laan (1)
    the method of calculating the energy value of dog and
    cat food intended for particular nutritional purposes           (Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs Ð Article 30 of
    (OJ L 91, 22.4.1995, p. 39),                                    the EC Treaty and Directive 79/112/EEC Ð Dutch
                                                                      formed shoulder ham composed of shoulder ham pieces)
and/or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the                                    (1999/C 100/09)
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 12 of Directive 93/74/EEC, Article 13 of Directive                         (Language of the case: German)
94/28/EC, Article 2 of Directive 94/39/EC, Article 2 of
Directive 95/9/EC and Article 3 of Directive 95/10/EC Ð
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
(President of the Chamber) D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur)
and, L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on               In Case C-383/97: Reference to the Court under
9 February 1999, in which it:                                       Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Amtsgericht


title: Case T-122/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Helkon Media v Commission (Arbitration clause — Programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audio-visual works (MEDIA Plus) — Demand for payment of financial aid — Existence of an arbitration clause — Compensation — Admissibility)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Helkon Media v Commission
   (Case T-122/06) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Programme to encourage the development, distribution and promotion of European audio-visual works (MEDIA Plus) - Demand for payment of financial aid - Existence of an arbitration clause - Compensation - Admissibility)
   (2008/C 301/49)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Helkon Media AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: U. Karpenstein, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Wilms and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Action under Article 238 EC for an order that the Commission pay to the applicant a sum allegedly owed under a contract relating to Community support for the project ‘DARK BLUE WORLD’ (Project no. 2002-4212-0103DI010006DE).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Helkon Media AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case C-29/99: Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union

text:
10.4.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 100/9
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt and communicate to            extend to the fields covered by Articles 1 to 5, Article 7,
     the Commission within the prescribed period the laws,          Article 14, Article 16(1) and (3) and Articles 17 to 19.
     regulations and administrative provisions necessary
     to implement Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
     12 December 1991 concerning the protection of                  This view is, it is submitted, wrong in law in that it is:
     waters against pollution caused by nitrates from
     agricultural sources, and in particular by failing to
     comply with the obligation laid down in Article 3(2)           Ð contrary to the Treaty; and
     thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 12(1) thereof.
                                                                    Ð inconsistent with the legislative action taken over the
                                                                        years by the Council itself, on proposals from the
2. Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                        Commission.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,
                                                                    by order of that court of 1 February 1999, in the case of
Action brought on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of              Commissioners of Customs and Excise against Primback
the European Communities against the Council of the                                               Ltd
                       European Union                                                       (Case C-34/99)
                        (Case C-29/99)                                                     (1999/C 100/15)
                       (1999/C 100/14)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                    of 1 February 1999, which was received at the Court
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                    Registry on 8 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
Communities on 5 February 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                    the case of Commissioners of Customs and Excise against
the European Communities, represented by Thomas F.
                                                                    Primback Ltd, on the following questions:
Cusack and Lena Ström, Legal Advisers, acting as agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of
the Commission, Centre Wagner.                                      1. Where a retailer offers, at a single price, goods and the
                                                                        option of a period of extendes credit to pay that price
                                                                        Ð the credit to be provided by a person other than the
                                                                        retailer, and at no additional cost to the customer Ð
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             what is the taxable amount for which the retailer must
                                                                        account in respect of the goods supplied, having
                                                                        regard to Articles 11A(1)(a) and 13B(d)(1) of Council
Ð order that the final paragraph of the Declaration by                  Directive 77/388/EEC (1)? In particular, is the taxable
     the European Atomic Energy Community according to                  amount:
     the provisions of Article 30(4)(iii) of the Convention
     on Nuclear Safety attached to the Council's Decision
     of 7 December 1998 be annulled;                                    (a) the full amount payable by the customer;
                                                                        (b) the full amount payable by the customer, less the
Ð order the Council          to  pay   the  costs   of  these               value of the credit;
     proceedings.
                                                                        (c) (if different from (b) above) the amount actually
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                          received by the retailer; or
                                                                        (d) an amount calculated on some other, and if so
By limiting the terms of the final paragraph of the                         what, basis?
Declaration attached to its Decision of 7 December 1998
in relation to Community competence, the Council seeks
to establish that the competence of the Community in the            2. If the taxable amount is the full amount payable by
fields covered by the Convention on Nuclear Safety is                   the customer, less the value of the credit (see
limited to Article 15 and Article 16(2) and that it does not            question 1(b) above), how is that credit to be valued?


title: Case T-358/03: Action brought on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried Krahl against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 7/39
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, an official of the European Parliament, obtained           Following the entry into force on 1 January 2001 of the new
a court decision on 6 August 1999 to the effect that her                  financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the
daughter should reside mainly with her. The applicant and her             European Communities (1), the Parliament commenced a pro-
husband, also an official, were divorced by decree of 31 Octo-            cedure for amendment of the rules concerning budgetary
ber 2001, which became final on 12 January 2002. The                      heading 3701, the credits of which are intended to cover
Parliament decided to pay the applicant only half the travel              administrative and operational expenses of the political groups
expenses for her daughter, and to do so as from 2002, the                 and of the secretariat for non-attached Members. On 2 July
year in which the divorce took place.                                     2003 the Bureau of the Parliament decided to adopt the revised
                                                                          version of the latter rules, subject to amendment of the
                                                                          Parliament’s Rules of Procedure and other changes which
                                                                          might prove necessary following further consultations.
By this application the applicant contests that decision, on the
basis of Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. The
applicant submits that, in view of the decision granting her
primary custody of her daughter, the latter should be regarded            In support of their application for annulment of the decision
as being her dependent child and therefore that the travel                adopting the new rules, the applicant invoke first the alleged
expenses should be paid to her at the full rate.                          failure to comply with formal requirements laid down for the
                                                                          adoption of such rules. They contend that the new rules were
                                                                          notified to them in the form of a proposal which did not
                                                                          purport to be the final version of an official document. They
                                                                          also submit that the contested measure was adopted without
                                                                          the budgetary control committee, from which an opinion had
                                                                          been sought, having issued its report and that therefore an
                                                                          essential procedural requirement had been disregarded. In
                                                                          addition to matters of form, the applicants also claim that
                                                                          the new rules infringe the principle of equal treatment by
Action brought on 23 October 2003 by Bruno Gollnisch                      prohibiting new categories of expenses or employment of staff
        and Others against the European Parliament                        under budgetary heading 3701 only as far as non-attached
                                                                          Members are concerned.
                        (Case T-357/03)
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June
                                                                              2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget
                         (2004/C 7/72)                                        of the European Communities (OJ L 248 of 16.9.2002, p. 1).
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 23 October 2003 against the                   Action brought on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried Krahl
European Parliament by Bruno Gollnisch, of Limonest (France),               against the Commission of the European Communities
Marie-France Stirbois, of Villeneuve-Loubey (France), Carl
Lang, of Boulogne-Billancourt (France), Jean-Claude Martinez,
of Montpellier (France), Philip Claeys, of Overijse (Belgium)                                     (Case T-358/03)
and Koen Dillon, of Antwerp (Belgium), represented by
Wallerand de Saint Just, lawyer.
                                                                                (2004/C 7/73)
The applicants claim that Court of First Instance should:                                    (Language of the case: French)
—     annul the decision of the Bureau of the European
      Parliament of 2 July 2003 and more particularly the
      provisions thereof adopting a proposal by Mr Poettering             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      concerning the report of Mr Van Hulten, which amends                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      the rules on the use of budgetary heading 3701;
                                                                          European Communities on 17 October 2003 by Siegfried
                                                                          Krahl, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by Sébastien
—     order the European Parliament to pay the costs and                  Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal,
      lawyer’s fees amounting to EUR 10 000.                              lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- C 7/40                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          10.1.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               —      annul the contested Commission Decisions specifically to
                                                                                the extent that they apply interest at a default rate of
—     annul the decision not to reimburse to the applicant his                   8,04 %;
      accommodation expenses of EUR 4 200 per month in
      full;                                                               —      order the Commission to pay its own costs and those
                                                                                incurred by the applicant.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          By the Decision made on 18 July 2001 the Commission found
                                                                          that the applicant and seven other undertakings had infringed
In support of his application, the applicant submits that the             Article 81 of the EC treaty by participating in a complex of
defendant infringed Articles 5 and 23 of Annex X to the Staff             agreements and concerted practices in the graphite electrodes
Regulations, in so far as it may not refuse to reimburse                  sector. The same Decision imposed a fine on the applicant and
his accommodation expenses when it did not provide any                    required that it be paid within 3 months of notification with
accommodation and offered no alternative.                                 interest of 8,04 % payable if the fine was not paid by the stated
                                                                          date. This Decision was notified to the applicant under cover
                                                                          of a letter dated 23 July 2003 which also indicated that if the
                                                                          applicant brought proceedings before the Court of First
                                                                          Instance against the imposition of the fine, no enforcement
                                                                          proceedings would be taken as long as the case was pending
                                                                          before the court, on condition that the applicant paid interest
                                                                          on the amount of the fine at a rate of 6,04 % and provided a
                                                                          bank guarantee for the amount of the fine. The applicant
Action brought on 27 October 2003 by GRAFTECH                             made representations to the Commission proposing different
INTERNATIONAL LTD. against the Commission of the                          payment terms, which were rejected by a letter of the
                   European Communities                                   Commission dated 9 August 2001. The applicant also intro-
                                                                          duced proceedings against the Decision of 18 July 2001
                                                                          imposing the fine (1). Further proposals by the applicant on
                        (Case T-359/03)                                   payment facilities were rejected by the Commission by letters
                                                                          dated 18 August 2003, 11 September 2003 and 18 September
                         (2004/C 7/74)                                    2003.
                  (Language of the case: English)                         By the present action the applicant attacks all the Decisions
                                                                          concerning payment terms. It submits that it is an error of law,
                                                                          on the part of the Commission, to consider that no security
                                                                          other than a bank guarantee could be accepted by the
                                                                          Commission. It also submits that the Decision of 18 August
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 2003 infringes the principle of proportionality by failing to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                achieve a fair balance between the interest of the parties and
European Communities on 27 October 2003 by GRAFTECH                       in particular the applicant’s interest in granting a lien over its
INTERNATIONAL LTD., Wilmington, Delaware, USA, rep-                       unencumbered assets instead of the bank guarantee requested
resented by K.P.E. Lasok QC and Brian Hartnett, Barristers with           by the Commission . The applicant also invokes alleged
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     manifest errors of fact relating to the Commission’s finding
                                                                          that the applicant has not shown that it cannot comply with
                                                                          the Commission’s Decision and the Commission’s assessment
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               of its financial position and the value of the lien it had offered.
                                                                          The applicant further submits that the Commission’s Decisions
—     annul the contested Commission Decisions dated 18 July              on the applicable interest rates are manifestly erroneous
      2001, 23 July 2001, 9 August 2001, 18 August 2003,                  and that the Commission has breached essential procedural
      11 September 2003 and 18 September 2003 requiring                   requirements in that it failed to afford the applicant an
      GTI to perform its obligations under the Decision of                opportunity to be heard before adopting a decision to enforce
      18 July 2001 or post a bank guarantee or face imminent              its first Decision of 18 July 2001.
      enforcement of the Decision of 18 July 2001 as of
      September 2003;
                                                                          (1) Case T-246/01 notified in OJ C 17, 19.01.2002, p. 16.
—     annul the contested Commission Decisions specifically to
      the extent that they apply interest at a rate of 6,04 %
      when current market interest rates are significantly lower;


title: Case T-68/01: Action brought on 22 March 2001 by Huber + Suhner MRS GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
28.7.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 212/25
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             INSTANCE
                                                                          —      annul Article 1(1) and (3) and Article 3 of the Com-
                          of 2 April 2001                                        mission’s decision C(2000) 2466 final of 26 July 2000 (1),
                                                                                in so far as the Commission declares therein that the aid
                                                                                granted by Germany for project 1014, amounting to
in Case T-24/01 R: Claire Staelen v European Parliament                          DEM 701 664,50, is incompatible with the common
              and Council of the European Union                                  market;
(Application for interim relief — Officials — Non-admission               —      order the Commission to pay the costs.
     to later stages of a competition — Urgency — None)
                          (2001/C 212/47)                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: French)                        In 1996 the applicant acquired the mobile radio products
                                                                          division of the German company FUBA Hans Kolbe & Co.
In Case T-24/01 R: Claire Staelen, member of the temporary                That company had collaborated, during the period from
staff of the European Parliament, residing in Bridel (Luxem-              1994 to 1996, in a research and development project (pro-
bourg), represented by J. Choucroun, lawyer, with an address              ject 1014) implemented by a subsidiary of the SICAN Group
for service in Luxembourg, against European Parliament                    in relation to repeater systems in the Land of Lower Saxony.
(Agents: Y. Pantalis and J.F. De Wachter) and Council of the              The Land of Lower Saxony had promoted that project by
European Union (Agents: F. Anton and A. Pilette) — appli-                 granting State aid, which the Commission held, in the contest-
cation, essentially, for an order suspending the procedure                ed decision, to be incompatible with the common market. The
recruiting successful candidates in competition EUR/A/151/98              Land thereupon demanded the return of the amount of the
to recruit French-speaking administrators, organised by the               aid.
European Parliament, and an order requiring the Parliament
and the Council, together, to produce all the minutes relating
to the tests in that competition and to reply to a number of              The applicant maintains that the defendant has committed a
questions put by the applicant — the President of the Court of            significant breach of its obligation to provide a statement of
First Instance made an order on 2 April 2001, the operative               reasons, as prescribed by Article 253 EC. It claims that, in the
part of which is as follows:                                              context of the legal assessment contained in its decision, the
                                                                          defendant devoted only three sentences to project 1014 and
1.    The application is dismissed;                                       provided no reasons whatsoever as to why the project did not
                                                                          fulfil the criteria of industrial research within the meaning of
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                 Annex I to the Community framework (2).
                                                                          Furthermore, the contested decision is contrary to
                                                                          Article 87(3)(c) EC. It wrongly concludes that project 1014
                                                                          fulfils neither the criteria of industrial research nor those of
                                                                          competitive development. The defendant was not entitled to
                                                                          deny that project 1014 involved precompetitive development
                                                                          by arguing that that project concerned the development of a
Action brought on 22 March 2001 by Huber + Suhner                         commercial repeater system. The project resulted in the
MRS GmbH against the Commission of the European                           development only of prototypes for essential components of
                            Communities                                   the repeater system. The research activities were limited to
                                                                          preparatory work, and the prototypes developed by the project
                           (Case T-68/01)                                 partners were not yet capable of being used for commercial
                                                                          purposes. Consequently, the defendant has infringed the
                                                                          Community framework by concluding that project 1014 went
                          (2001/C 212/48)                                 beyond the stage of precompetitive development.
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          (1) OJ 2001 L 18, p. 18.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 (2) Community framework for state aid for research and development
                                                                              (OJ 1996 C 45, p. 5).
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 March 2001 by Huber + Suhner
MRS GmbH, of Bad Salzdetfurth (Germany), represented by
Hans-Jörg Niemeyer and Egbert Wilms, Rechtsanwälte, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.