title: Case C-463/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 October 2014  — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Аdministrativen sad — Varna (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 October 2014 — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
   (Case C-463/14)
   (2014/C 439/33)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Аdministrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 24(1) and point (b) of Article 25 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘supply of services’ also covers cases involving subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services such as those at issue in the main proceedings, namely where a supplier, having qualified personnel available for supplying the services, has agreed to be on call for the customer during the term of the contract and has undertaken to refrain from entering into similar contracts with the customer’s competitors?

               2.

               Should Articles 64(1) and 63 of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that, for subscribed consulting services, the chargeable event occurs on expiry of the period for which the payment was agreed, irrespective of whether and how often the customer makes use of the supplier’s on-call services?

               3.

               Should Article 62(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC be interpreted as meaning that a person supplying services in connection with a subscription consulting contract is obligated to charge value added tax for the services on expiry of the period for which the subscription fee was agreed, or does this obligation arise only if the customer has made use of the consultant’s services?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-82/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Environment — Waste — Hazardous waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC — Obligation to draw up and communicate waste management plans)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-82/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Environment - Waste - Hazardous waste - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC - Obligation to draw up and communicate waste management plans)
   (2007/C 183/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and M. Konstantinidis, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia and G. Fiengo, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Article 7 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 47), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), and Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20) — Obligation to communicate waste management plans
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to draw up:

                           —

                           a waste management plan in accordance with Article 7(1) of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, for the Province of Rimini;

                           —

                           waste management plans including suitable sites or installations for the disposal of waste in accordance with the fourth indent of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, for the Region of Lazio;

                           —

                           waste management plans in accordance with Article 6 of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste for the Regions of Friuli Venezia-Giulia and Puglia, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano Alto-Adige and the Province of Rimini,

                     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.


title: Case C-465/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängigen Finanzsenats der Außenstelle Linz by order of that Court of 20 October 2003 in the case of Kretztechnik AG against Finanzamt Linz

text:
C 47/14               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.2.2004
3.   In assessing the amount of damages, in addition to the             2.   If the first question is answered in the affirmative: are
     restitution of sums charged in breach of Community                      Article 2(1) and Article 17 of the Sixth Directive to be
     rules, is the national court required (again as a matter of             interpreted as meaning that all services obtained in
     Community law) to award the injured party a sum by way                  connection with a listing on the stock market are to be
     of punitive damages against those persons responsible                   attributed to an exempt supply and that for that reason
     for the prohibited agreement or abuse of a dominant                     there is no right to a deduction of input tax?
     position?
4.   Does Community law also require the payment of                     3.   If the first question is answered in the negative: is there a
     damages for non-material loss?                                          right under Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive to
                                                                             deduct input tax on the ground that the services in respect
                                                                             of which a deduction of input tax is claimed (advertising,
5.   As a matter of Community law, is the national court
                                                                             agent’s fees, and legal and technical advice) are used for
     required of its own motion to order the payment of
                                                                             the purposes of the undertaking’s taxable transactions?
     punitive damages or damages for non-material loss?
6.   Is the limitation period of one year for bringing an action
     for damages for breach of Articles 81 and 82 EC under              (1) OJ L 145, p. 1.
     Italian law too short and therefore in conflict with
     Community law?
7.   As a matter of Community law, for the purposes of the
     limitation period for bringing an action for damages,
     does time begin to run from the day on which the
     infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC was committed or
     the day on which that infringement came to an end?
8.   Does Community law require national courts to disapply
     national rules in conflict with Community law or rather
     to interpret them so as to comply with Community law?              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hessischen
                                                                        Verwaltungsgerichtshofes by order of that Court of
                                                                        1 October 2003 in the case of Volkswirt Weinschänken
                                                                                GmbH against Stadt Frankfurt am Main
                                                                                (Case C-491/03)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängigen
Finanzsenats der Außenstelle Linz by order of that Court
of 20 October 2003 in the case of Kretztechnik AG                                                 (2004/C 47/24)
                    against Finanzamt Linz
                        (Case C-465/03)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         (2004/C 47/23)
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Hessischen Verwal-
                                                                        tungsgerichtshofes of 1 October 2003, received at the Court
                                                                        Registry on 20 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                        the case of Volkswirt Weinschänken GmbH against Stadt
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Frankfurt am Main on the following questions:
European Communities by order of the Unabhängigen Fi-
nanzsenats der Außenstelle Linz of 20 October 2003, received
at the Court Registry on 5 November 2003, for a preliminary             1.   A local beverage duty bye-law defines as the subject-
ruling in the case of Kretztechnik AG against Finanzamt Linz                 matter of that duty ‘the sale of alcoholic beverages for
on the following questions:                                                  immediate consumption’, and as such a sale ‘any sale for
                                                                             consumption on the premises’. Is this duty another
1.   In becoming listed on a stock market and in issuing                     indirect tax on products subject to excise duty for the
     shares in that connection to new shareholders in return                 purposes of Article 3(1) and (2) of Council Directive
     for the issue price, does a public limited company                      92/12/EEC (1) of 25 February 1992 on the general
     make a supply for consideration within the meaning of                   arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on
     Article 2(1) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                   the holding, movement and monitoring of such products,
     17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the                     or is it a tax on the supply of services relating to products
     Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common                       subject to excise duty, within the meaning of the second
     system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment? (1)             subparagraph of Article 3(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC?


13.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/23
         considered that an undertaking in difficulties, the         Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
         position of which in terms of pricing covers the                European Communities of 30 November 1998 in Case
         middle to the top of the range, must of necessity               T-97/94;
         abandon its strategy and adopt instead a strategy
         of price dumping Ð which does not seem to                   Ð declare the action brought by the applicant on 9 March
         accord with the spirit of the guidelines.                       1994 admissible and well founded;
     Ð The Commission's finding concerning a lack of                 Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
         proportion between State funds and the
         contribution made by the buyer does not in any              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         way take into account the special situation of such
         buyers as the managers of the undertaking, who              Ð Infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention
         contribute sums corresponding to their personal                 on Human Rights, discrimination, breach of the
         finances and thereby show their commitment to                   principle that no person should be allowed to derive
         the restructuring plan. In addition, the                        an advantage from his own illegal acts: whilst the
         Commission has failed to take into account the                  appellant may no longer have been in the service of
         fact that the recipient undertaking constitutes a               the Commission at the time when he brought his
         small to medium-sized undertaking and the fact                  action, he was in its service at the time when he made
         that it is in an objective 2' zone, despite the fact           his complaint giving rise to the subsequent
         that provision is made for this in the guidelines.              proceedings. By failing to notify its decision rejecting
         The Commission wrongly estimates the buyer's                    his complaint until after the expiry of the period of
         contribution to amount to 12 % of the State funds               four months provided for by the Staff Regulations of
         applied; in terms of the subsidy' equivalent, the              Officials, the Commission itself created the
         proportion in question amounts to 22 %. Lastly,                 circumstances which enabled it to plead the absence of
         the restructuring measures taken (involving the                 a legal interest in bringing proceedings.
         closing down of approximately 60 % of
         production capacity, laying off of employees, etc.)         Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of, and
         clearly show that the undertaking has participated              respect for, personal rights: the Court of First Instance
         in the efforts made.                                            failed to take into account the fact that positive staff
                                                                         reports may still permit an official, even after his
     Ð As regards the criterion of preventing distortions
                                                                         service has terminated, to prove his scientific and
         of competition, the French Government considers
                                                                         professional abilities in the event of his continuing to
         that the Commission's assessment fails to take into
                                                                         pursue his professional activities, even outside the
         account the information provided by it, and that
                                                                         Community sphere.
         the decision is not sufficiently specific and
         detailed.
(1) Competition law in the European Communities', Vol. II B,
    p. 38.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-204/98 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/41)
                                                                     By order of 10 December 1998 the President of the Court
Appeal brought on 29 January 1999 by N against the                   of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
order made on 30 November 1998 by the Fifth Chamber                  removal from the register of Case C-204/98: Commission
of the Court of First Instance of the European                       of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Communities in Case T-97/94 between N and the
          Commission of the European Communities                     (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                        (Case C-21/99 P)
                         (1999/C 71/40)
An appeal against the order made on 30 November 1998
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 Removal from the register of Case C-308/98 (1)
European Communities in Case T-97/94 between N and                                           (1999/C 71/42)
the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                     By order of 16 December 1998 the President of the Court
Communities on 29 January 1999 by N, represented by
                                                                     of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Georges Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens Bar.
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-308/98: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v Ireland.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998.
Ð declare the present appeal admissible and well
     founded;


title: Case C-204/10 P: Order of the Court of 23 November 2010 — Enercon GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hasbro, Inc. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word mark ENERCON — Opposition of the proprietor of the word mark TRANSFORMERS ENERGON — Refusal to register — Likelihood of confusion)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/3

         Order of the Court of 23 November 2010 — Enercon GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hasbro, Inc.
   (Case C-204/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word mark ENERCON - Opposition of the proprietor of the word mark TRANSFORMERS ENERGON - Refusal to register - Likelihood of confusion)
   2011/C 89/05
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Enercon GmbH (represented by: J. Mellor, Barrister, and R. Böhm, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (represented by: D. Botis, Agent), Hasbro, Inc.

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 February 2010 in Case T-472/07 Enercon v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the applicant for the word mark ‘ENERCON’, for goods in Classes 16, 18, 24, 25, 28 and 32, against Decision R 959/2006-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 25 October 2007, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the Opposition Division’s decision which refused registration of that mark in the context of the opposition brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘TRANSFORMERS ENERGON’, for goods in Classes 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 30 and 32, and the unregistered marks ‘TRANSFORMERS ENERGON’ and ‘ENERGON’ used in the United Kingdom for similar goods — Infringement of Article 8(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Enercon GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case C-418/03: Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
C 275/40                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                    15.11.2003
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                     2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
the Court should:
1.    declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               Pleas in law and main arguments
      comply with Directive 2001/18/EC of the European
      Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the
      deliberate release into the environment of genetically               The time limit for transposing the directive expired on
      modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/               17 October 2002.
      220/EEC (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate
      them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;               (1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
2.    order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the French Republic
The period for transposition of the directive expired on
17 October 2002.
                                                                                (Case C-419/03)
(1) OJ 2001 L 106, p. 1.
                                                                                (2003/C 275/63)
                                                                           An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 October
                                                                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents,
Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy
                            of Luxembourg
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-418/03)
                                                                           1.    Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           (2003/C 275/62)                                       Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                                the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
                                                                                into the environment of genetically modified organisms
                                                                                and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1) and, in
                                                                                any event, by not communicating them to the Com-
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                              mission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                     obligations under that directive;
ties on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                 2.    order the French Republic to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with               The time limit for transposing the directive expired on
      Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                           17 October 2002.
      the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
      into the environment of genetically modified organisms
      and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC (1) and, in
                                                                           (1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001, p. 1.
      any event, by not communicating them to the Com-
      mission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive;


title: Case C-145/14: Action brought on 27 March 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/19

         Action brought on 27 March 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-145/14)
   2014/C 159/25
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Petrova and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

      Form of order sought

   The European Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that the existing landfill sites in the country could not continue to operate after 16 July 2009 unless they complied with the requirements of Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (1), the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the answers to the reasoned opinion (the last answers date from 16 July 2013 and from 10 February 2014) the Bulgarian national authorities admitted that there are to date 100 landfill sites in operation in the Republic of Bulgaria which have not been adapted to the requirements of Article 14 of Directive 1999/31/EC.
   The Commission therefore deems it necessary to bring an action before the Court of Justice of the European Union so that the Court declares that the Republic of Bulgaria has infringed that provision.

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.


title: Case T-143/12: Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Germany v Commission (State aid — Postal sector — Financing of the additional labour and social costs relating to some of the staff of Deutsche Post by means of subsidies and revenue generated by the remuneration for price-regulated services — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of advantage — ‘Combus’ judgment — Demonstration of the existence of an economic and selective advantage — No such advantage)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 July 2016 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-143/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Postal sector - Financing of the additional labour and social costs relating to some of the staff of Deutsche Post by means of subsidies and revenue generated by the remuneration for price-regulated services - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of advantage - ‘Combus’ judgment - Demonstration of the existence of an economic and selective advantage - No such advantage))
   (2016/C 314/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: initially T. Henze and K. Petersen, and subsequently T. Henze and K. Stranz, acting as Agents, and U. Soltész, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Grespan, T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 on Measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG (OJ 2012 L 289, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Articles 1 and 4 to 6 of Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 on Measure C 36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-421/10: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Deggendorf v Markus Stoppelkamp, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the estate of Harald Raab (VAT — Sixth Directive — Article 21(1)(b) — Determination of the place of reference for tax purposes — Services provided by a supplier residing in the same country as the customer but having established the seat of his economic activity in another country — Concept of ‘taxable person established abroad’ )

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)) — Finanzamt Deggendorf v Markus Stoppelkamp, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the estate of Harald Raab
   (Case C-421/10) (1)

   (VAT - Sixth Directive - Article 21(1)(b) - Determination of the place of reference for tax purposes - Services provided by a supplier residing in the same country as the customer but having established the seat of his economic activity in another country - Concept of ‘taxable person established abroad’)
   2011/C 347/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Finanzamt Deggendorf

      Respondent: Markus Stoppelkamp, acting in his capacity as insolvency administrator of the estate of Harald Raab

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 21(1)(b) 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) — Determination of the place of reference for tax purposes — Services provided by a supplier residing in the same Member State as the recipients of those services but having established the seat of his economic activity in another Member State — Concept of a ‘taxable person established abroad’

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 21(1)(b) 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, as amended by Council Directive 2000/65/EC of 17 October 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order for him to be considered a ‘taxable person who is not established within the territory of the country’, it is sufficient that the taxable person should have established the seat of his economic activity outside that country.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case T-77/02: Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Schneider Electric S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

text:
18.5.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —      Take any other measure it may consider appropriate;
In the present case, the applicant, a Spanish frozen tunny               —      Order the Commission to pay the costs.
producers’ organisation which has previously contested before
the Court of First Instance a number of Commission regu-
lations providing for compensation to producer organisations
for tuna delivered to the processing industry for the quarters
between 1 July 1999 and 31 December 2000 (2), is challenging
the regulation relating to the period between 1 January and
31 March 2001.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to those
put forward in Case T-142/01 (3).
                                                                         The applicant is the parent company of a group which is active
                                                                         in the production and sale of products and systems in the
                                                                         sectors of distribution of electricity, industrial control and
(1) OJ 2001 L 337, p. 25.                                                automation. On 16 February 2001 it formally informed the
(2) Cases T-142/01 and T-283/01.                                         Commission of the concentration it intended to enter into
(3) OJ C 245, p. 28.
                                                                         with Legrand, the parent company of a group operating in the
                                                                         production and sale of low-voltage electrical equipment.
                                                                         The commission declared the operation incompatible with
                                                                         the common market. The applicant brought an action for
                                                                         annulment of that decision (Case T-310/01; notice published
                                                                         in OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 15). The Commission then ordered
                                                                         the applicant, on the basis of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation
Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Schneider Electric                    (EEC) No 4064/89 (1), to separate from Legrand. The latter
  S.A. against Commission of the European Communities                    decision is the subject of the present proceedings.
                          (Case T-77/02)
                                                                         The applicant observes, first, that in its opinion the decision
                        (2002/C 118/46)
                                                                         declaring the concentration incompatible with the common
                                                                         market should be annulled. Since the decision at issue in the
                                                                         present action is the direct consequence of the first decision,
                   (Language of the case: French)                        the unlawfulness of the first decision entails the unlawfulness
                                                                         of the present decision.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicant observes further that the effect of the contested
European Communities on 18 March 2002 by Schneider                       decision is to deprive the applicant of its lawfully held rights
Electric S.A., established in Rueil-Malmaison (France), rep-             of property.
resented by Antoine Winckler and Eric de La Serre, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         In support of the present application, the applicant claims,
                                                                         first, that there has been an infringement of its right of access
—     Annul in its entirety, and in the alternative in part, the         to the case-file and its right to a proper hearing. The applicant
      Commission’s decision of 30 January 2002 requiring                 also considers that the report of the hearing officer did not
      undertakings to be separated (Case COMP/M.2283 —                   examine compliance with the rights of the defence throughout
      Schneider/Legrand) on the basis of Article 8(4) of Council         the procedure. The applicant also claims that there was a
      Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89;                                       breach of the obligation to state reasons.
 ---pagebreak--- C 118/30               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18.5.2002
The applicant further claims that there was a violation of               Action brought on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against
Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of                                the European Central Bank
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It submits that
there is no effective remedy before a court with full jurisdiction                                (Case T-83/02)
against decisions of the Commission concerning the control
of concentrations. The Commission must therefore itself                                          (2002/C 118/47)
comply fully with the principle of impartiality. To that end,
the investigative and decision-making functions must, in the                               (Language of the case: German)
applicant’s view, be entrusted to different persons or bodies,
which was not the case.
                                                                         An action against the European Central Bank was brought
The applicant also claims that there was a breach of the general         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
principle of Community law that any person whose rights have             on 20 March 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, of Frankfurt am Main
been infringed is entitled to an effective remedy. According to          (Germany), represented by N. Pflüger, lawyer.
the applicant, the contested decision interferes with the action
brought by the applicant against the decision declaring the              The applicant claims that the Court should:
operation incompatible with the common market. Any annul-
ment which might follow from that first application would be             —     annul the formal warning given by letter of 28.2.2002;
deprived of a great part of its effect as a result of the decision
at issue in the present application. The contested decision thus         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
also constitutes an infringement of the principle of good
administration, given that it obliged the applicant to bring a
fresh application in order to safeguard the effectiveness of the         Pleas in law and main arguments
first application.
                                                                         The applicant, an employee of the defendant, argues in support
                                                                         of his claim that the formal warning at issue is null and void,
The applicant then claims that the Commission exceeded its
                                                                         inasmuch as it is based on incorrect factual allegations, and
territorial jurisdiction by laying down certain conditions               that the complaints on which that warning is based are totally
for the separation. The applicant further submits that the
                                                                         unjustified. The applicant’s conduct does not reflect any
Commission did not comply with Article 8(4) of Regulation                continuing pattern of poor performance, and the applicant has
No 4064/89. That article, according to the applicant, requires           adequately performed his contractual duties.
the Commission to restore effective competition, not to restore
competitors in the market in question, as was done in the
contested decision. In that decision, finally, the Commission            Furthermore, the defendant is precluded by the obligation of
also failed to comply with the general principle of pro-                 an employer to have regard for the welfare and interests of his
portionality and made manifest errors of assessment.                     employees from taking into account certain facts by way of
                                                                         justification for the giving of the warning at issue. An
                                                                         employer is under an obligation forthwith to rebuke the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on           person concerned in respect of any matters on which he
    the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 395 of      proposes to rely by way of justification for the adoption of
    30.12.1989, p. 1, republished in OJ L 257 of 21.9.1990, p. 13).      measures adversely affecting the employee. In addition, the
                                                                         defendant’s conduct infringes the European rules on data
                                                                         protection.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 July 1998 in Case T-274/97: Ca'Pasta Srl v. Commission of the European Communities (Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 - Common fisheries policy - Community financial assistance - Procedure for cancelling the assistance - Action for annulment - Inadmissibility)

text:
10.10.98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 312/11
(Portugal), represented by Manuel Rodrigues, of the                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Lisbon Bar, v. Commission of the European Communities                                    of 16 July 1998
(Agents: Maria Teresa Figueira and Knut Simonsson) Ð
application for the annulment of Commission Decisions             in Case T-274/97: Ca'Pasta Srl v. Commission of the
C(96) 2554 and C(96) 2555 of 9 December 1996 reducing                               European Communities (1)
two Community aids granted by the European Social Fund
                                                                  (Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 Ð Common fisheries
Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh,
                                                                  policy Ð Community financial assistance Ð Procedure for
President, K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor,
                                                                  cancelling the assistance Ð Action for annulment Ð
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
judgment on 16 July 1998, in which it:
                                                                                (98/C 312/30)
1. dismisses the action;
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
2. orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                  In Case T-274/97: Ca'Pasta Srl, represented by Paolo Piva,
                                                                  of the Venice Bar, and Guy Arendt, of the Luxembourg
(1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                  Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                  latter's Chambers, 7 Val Sainte-Croix v. Commission of
                                                                  the European Communities (Agents: Hubert van Vliet and
                                                                  Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð application for annulment of a
                                                                  decision allegedly contained in a letter of 4 August 1997
                                                                  sent by the Commission to the applicant Ð the Court of
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                         First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,
                                                                  President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,
                       (First Chamber)                            Registrar, made an order on 16 July 1998, the operative
                        of 7 July 1998                            part of which is as follows:
in Case T-178/97 Albano Moncada v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)                        1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
(Officials Ð Deputising for a hierarchical superior Ð
Action manifestly inadmissible and not well founded in            2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
                              law)
                                                                  (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.
                         (98/C 312/29)
               (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-178/97: Albano Moncada, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                    ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry                                      of 6 July 1998
Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of               in Case T-286/97: Anthony Goldstein v. Commission of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, against the                            the European Communities (1)
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                  (Action for failure to act Ð Obligation to act Ð None Ð
Christine Berardis-Kayser and Florence Duvieusart-
                                                                        Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
Clotuche) Ð application for, first, annulment of the
Commission's decision of 12 August 1996 directing a                                       (98/C 312/31)
colleague in a lower grade than the applicant to deputise
during the absences of his hierarchical superior and,
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
second, for damages Ð the Court (First Chamber),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and R. M. Moura
Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has            In Case T-286/97, Anthony Goldstein, residing in London,
made an order on 7 July 1998 in which it:                         represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor, 3
                                                                  Kings Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London, against
                                                                  Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                  Richard Lyal) Ð application for a finding that the
                                                                  Commission failed to act by failing to take a decision on a
2. orders the parties to bear their own costs.                    complaint (IV/34.824 Ð Goldstein/GMC) against certain
                                                                  anti-competitive practices, lodged by the applicant under
                                                                  Article 3(2) of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
                                                                  1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of
                                                                  the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87)
                                                                  Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed


title: Case T-35/12: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Icelandic Group UK v Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/26

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Icelandic Group UK v Commission
   (Case T-35/12) (1)

   2013/C 32/45
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Case C-266/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 June 2015 by Central Bank of Iran against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-563/12: Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/25

         Appeal brought on 3 June 2015 by Central Bank of Iran against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-563/12: Central Bank of Iran v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-266/15 P)
   (2015/C 294/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Central Bank of Iran (represented by: M. Lester and Z. Al-Rikabi, Barristers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant seeks the following orders:

               —

               An order setting aside the decision of the General Court of 25 March 2015 in case T-563/12;

               —

               An order annulling the Contested Measures in so far as they apply to the appellant; and

               —

               An order that the Council should pay the appellant’s costs both at first instance and of this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Central Bank of Iran appeals against the judgment of the General Court in case T-563/12 of 25 March 2015, dismissing the appellant’s application for annulment of its inclusion in Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 (2). The appellant puts forward four pleas in law in support of its appeal.

      Ground A. The General Court erred in concluding that the Council had properly assessed whether any of the criteria for listing in the Contested Measures was fulfilled

   The General Court erred in conflating the services provided by the appellant pursuant to the Monetary and Banking Law of Iran with ‘financial support’ for the Government of Iran within the meaning of the relevant designation criterion. The services provided by the appellant, as a Central Bank, such as holding accounts and clearing transactions, are not ‘financial support’ of such a qualitative and quantitative importance that it enables the Government of Iran to pursue a nuclear programme. Indeed properly and proportionately construed, those services do not amount to financial support at all.

      Ground B: The General Court erred in holding that the Council had complied with its duty to give reasons in Article 296 TFEU

   The existence of the Monetary and Banking Law of Iran, which sets out the appellant’s functions and powers as the Central Bank of Iran, does not (contrary to the General Court’s judgment) make it obvious what the Council means by ‘financial support’ in the statement of reasons. The General Court erred in holding that the Council was not required to provide concrete and specific reasons explaining how, and in what ways, it considered that the appellant had provided such support to the Government of Iran.

      Ground C: The General Court erred in its finding that the Appellant’s rights of defence had been respected

   The General Court also erred in holding that the Council had respected the appellant’s rights of defence. The Council failed to provide any evidence prior to its decision to re-list the appellant. The General Court erred in allowing the Council to supplement the statement of reasons through reliance on the provisions of the Monetary and Banking Law of Iran, which (contrary to the General Court’s judgment) were not obviously implied into the statement of reasons. The appellant was deprived of knowledge of the case against it and was unable to put forward a proper defence.

      Ground D: The General Court erred in rejecting the appellant’s plea that the Council had infringed, without justification or proportion, the appellant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property and reputation

   The General Court should have found that listing the appellant is disproportionate because it has caused serious hardship to the appellant and to the Iranian people, has no impact on the Government of Iran’s sources of revenue; and will not contribute to the aim of obliging the Government of Iran to end the development of its nuclear proliferation programme.

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ L 282, p. 58

      (2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, OJ L 282, p. 16


title: Case C-469/07: Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-469/07) (1)

   (2008/C 128/61)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case T-205/05: Action brought on 17 May 2005 by European Dynamics SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/34

         Action brought on 17 May 2005 by European Dynamics SA against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-205/05)
   (2005/C 193/58)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 May 2005 by European Dynamics SA, established in Athens (Hellenic Republic), represented by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1)

               annul the decision of the Commission communicated to the applicant through a letter dated 3 March 2005, to issue a recovery order for an amount of 59 485 euros against the applicant related to the ‘eEBO’ project, the decision of the Commission communicated to the applicant through a letter dated 12 November 2004 by which the Commission decided to reimburse an amount of labour not exceeding 85 971 euros, as well as the decision of the Commission communicated to the applicant by letter dated 16 May 2003 to terminate the contract EDC-53007 eEBO/27873: eContent exposure and business opportunities.

               2)

               order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was awarded a contract by the Commission relating to the project ‘e-Content Exposure and Business Opportunities’ (eEBO). Some of the work for this contract was subcontracted by the applicant, even though subcontracting was not allowed. A technical verification was executed by the Commission and clarifications were requested on certain issues relating to the personnel used by the applicant. Following this evaluation, the Commission adopted the decision contested in the present case.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission made an evident error of assessment in that it failed to take into account that the eEBO-project was dependent on another e-content project, namely PICK, and that the contractor for the PICK project did not respect its obligations. The applicant also claims that the Commission erred in terminating the project as a whole.
   Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed the principles of good administration and transparency and did not eliminate certain conflicts of interest. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to act when the applicant indicated that, allegedly, the source of the malfunctioning of the project were the personnel relations between specific Commission officials and the two experts to which the applicant subcontracted part of the work.


title: Case C-71/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — Comercializadora Eloro, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Application for registration of a figurative mark including word element ‘ZUMEX’ — Opposition of the proprietor of word mark JUMEX — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 15(1), second subparagraph, (b) and Article 42(2) — Evidence of use — Use in the European Union — Article 76(2) — Additional evidence of use produced out of time before the Board of Appeal — Discretion of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO))

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/13

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 4 May 2017 — Comercializadora Eloro, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-71/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative mark including word element ‘ZUMEX’ - Opposition of the proprietor of word mark JUMEX - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 15(1), second subparagraph, (b) and Article 42(2) - Evidence of use - Use in the European Union - Article 76(2) - Additional evidence of use produced out of time before the Board of Appeal - Discretion of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)))
   (2017/C 213/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Comercializadora Eloro, SA (represented by: J.L. de Castro Hermida, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent), Zumex Group, SA (represented by: M.C. March Cabrelles, abogada)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Comercializadora Eloro, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case T-367/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 August 2009 — Abouchar v Commission (Non-contractual liability — EDF — Conditions for the grant and control of credits for an agricultural holding project in Senegal — Limitation period — Inadmissibility)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/27

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 August 2009 — Abouchar v Commission
   (Case T-367/08) (1)

   (Non-contractual liability - EDF - Conditions for the grant and control of credits for an agricultural holding project in Senegal - Limitation period - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 256/49
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Michel Abouchar (Dakar, Senegal) (represented by: B. Dubreuil-Basire and J.-J. Lorang, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bordes and E. Cujo, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for damages to compensate for the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the alleged errors of the Commission and its agents inherent in the conditions of grant and the control of loans financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) for its agricultural holding project in Senegal.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Mr Michel Abouchar is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/35

         Removal from the register of Case C- 493/03 (1)

   (2004/C 118/73)
   By order of 30 March 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-493/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d' appel de Bordeaux ) Ministère public v André Rochus Hiebeler.

      (1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.


title: Case T-407/13: Order of the General Court of 22 December 2014  — Al Assad v Council (Actions for annulment — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Syria — Freezing of funds — Inclusion of an individual on the lists of targeted persons — Personal connections with members of the regime — Rights of the defence — Fair hearing — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Right to effective judicial protection — Proportionality — Right to property — Right to privacy — Principle of res judicata — Inadmissibility — Manifest inadmissibility — Action devoid of legal foundation)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/34

         Order of the General Court of 22 December 2014 — Al Assad v Council
   (Case T-407/13) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Syria - Freezing of funds - Inclusion of an individual on the lists of targeted persons - Personal connections with members of the regime - Rights of the defence - Fair hearing - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Right to effective judicial protection - Proportionality - Right to property - Right to privacy - Principle of res judicata - Inadmissibility - Manifest inadmissibility - Action devoid of legal foundation))
   (2015/C 065/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bouchra Al Assad (Damascus, Syria) (represented by: G. Karouni and C. Dumont, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of, first, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2013 L 111, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 2013 L 127, p. 27), secondly, Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria (OJ 2013 L 147, p. 14), thirdly, Council Regulation (EU) No 1332/2013 of 13 December 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2013 L 335, p. 3), fourthly, Council Decision 2013/760/CFSP of 13 December 2013 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2013 L 335, p. 50), fifthly, Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 578/2014 of 28 May 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria (OJ 2014 L 160, p. 11), and sixthly, Council Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 amending Decision 2013/255 (OJ 2014 L 160, p. 37) in so far as the applicant’s name has been maintained on the lists of persons and entities to which those restrictive measures apply.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible in so far as it seeks annulment of Council Decision 2013/255/CFSP of 31 May 2013 concerning restrictive measures against Syria.

               2.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible in so far as it seeks annulment of Council Regulation (EU) No 1332/2013 of 13 December 2013 amending Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, Council Decision 2013/760/CFSP of 13 December 2013 amending Decision 2013/255, and Council Decision 2014/309/CFSP of 28 May 2014 amending Decision 2013/255.

               3.

               The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law in so far as it seeks annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 363/2013 of 22 April 2013 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 578/2014 of 28 May 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria.

               4.

               Bouchra Al Assad is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.


title: Case C-267/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Woerden v Staatsecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Input tax — Deduction)

text:
               29.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/6

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Gemeente Woerden v Staatsecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-267/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Input tax - Deduction))
   (2016/C 314/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gemeente Woerden

      Defendant: Staatsecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

   Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, in which a taxable person has had a building constructed and has sold that building for a price less than the cost of constructing it, that taxable person is entitled to deduct all of the value added tax paid in respect of the construction of that building, and not only a part of that tax in proportion to the parts of the building which its purchaser uses for economic activities. The fact that that purchaser allows the building at issue to be used without charge is of no importance in that regard.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 10.8.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 12 November 1996 in Case C-294/95 P Girish Ojha v. Commission of the European Communities (Appeal - Official - Posting outside the Community - Transfer in the interests of the service - Action for annulment - Compensation for non-material damage)

text:
8 . 2 . 97           I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 40/ 1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 2 . For the rest, the appeal is dismissed.
                         (First Chamber)                              3 . The action, in so far as it is based on an infringement
                     of 12 November 1996                                   of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations, is dismissed.
in Case C-294/95 P Girish Ojha v. Commission of the                   4 . The costs are to be borne as to two thirds by Mr Ojha
                   European Communities H                                  and as to one third by the Commission.
(Appeal — Official — Posting outside the Community —                  (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
Transfer in the interests of the service — Action for
   annulment — Compensation for non-material damage)
                           ( 97/C 40/01 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                of 19 November 1996
                                                                      in Case C-42/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           the Bundesgerichtshof): Siemens AG v. Henry Nold (')
           published in the European Court Reports)                   (Company law — Increase in capital — Consideration in
                                                                      kind — Shareholders ' right of pre-emption — Withdrawal)
In Case C-294/95 P: Girish Ojha, an official of the                                               ( 97/C 40/02 )
European Communities, represented by E. H. Pijnacker                                  (Language of the case: German)
Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden,                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
62 Avenue Guillaume, the other party to the proceedings                         published in the European Court Reports)
being: Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
A. M. Alves Vieira , assisted by D. Waelbroeck, of the                In case C-42/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Brussels Bar ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court             of the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal
of First Instance ( First Chamber) of 6 July 1995 in Case T          Court of Justice ) for a preliminary ruling in the
36/93 Ojha v. Commission ( 1995 ) ECR 11-497, seeking to              proceedings pending before that court between Siemens
have that judgment set aside — the Court ( First                      AG and Henry Nold — on the interpretation of the
Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward, acting as                    Second Council Directive ( 77/91 /EEC ) of 13 December
President of the Chamber, P. Jann and M. Wathelet                     1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the
( Rapporteur), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; L.                 protection of the interests of members and others, are
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                required by Member States of companies within the
judgment on 12 November 1996, in which it has ruled:                  meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the
                                                                      Treaty, in respect of the formation of public limited
                                                                      liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of
1 . The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July             their capital, with a view to making such safeguards
      1995 in Case T-36/93 Ojha v. Commission is set aside            equivalent ( OJ No L 26 , 30 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 ), in particular
     in so far as it holds that Article 26 of the Staff               Article 29 ( 1 ) and ( 4 ) thereof — the Court, composed of:
     Regulations of Officials of the European Communities             G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F. Mancini , J. C.
     was not applicable and that no infringement of the               Moitinho de Almeida and J. L. Murray ( Presidents of
     second paragraph of Article 26 of the Staff                      Chambers ), P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,
     Regulations could be found.                                      D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and


title: Case T-267/13: Action brought on 17 May 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Gaffashion (BAUSS)

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/14

         Action brought on 17 May 2013 — El Corte Inglés v OHIM — Gaffashion (BAUSS)
   (Case T-267/13)
   2013/C 215/19
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: E. Seijo Veiguela and J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gaffashion — Comércio de Acessórios de Moda, Lda (Viana do Castelo, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 February 2013 in Case R 2295/2011-2, in so far as, by dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant, it upheld the decision of the Opposition Division to grant in part the Community trade mark No 9 093 733‘BAUSS’ (word);

               —

               order the party or parties opposing this action to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Gaffashion — Comércio de Acessórios de Moda, Lda

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BAUSS’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 093 733

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks with word elements ‘BASS 3 TRES’, ‘BASS 10 DIEZ’ and ‘BASS 20 VEINTE’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/1

         (2009/C 55/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 44, 21.2.2009

   Past publications

      OJ C 32, 7.2.2009

      OJ C 19, 24.1.2009

      OJ C 6, 10.1.2009

      OJ C 327, 20.12.2008

      OJ C 313, 6.12.2008

      OJ C 301, 22.11.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case C-145/13 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 September 2014  — Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. v Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, formerly Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. Coop. rl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl, European Commission (Appeal — State aid — Aid to firms established in Venice and Chioggia — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/20

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 September 2014 — Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. v Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, formerly Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. Coop. rl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl, European Commission
   (Case C-145/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - State aid - Aid to firms established in Venice and Chioggia - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court))
   2014/C 409/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C. (represented by: R. Volpe and C. Montagner, avvocatesse)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Socialpesca Soc. coop. arl, formerly Cooperativa Mare Azzurro Soc. Coop. rl, Cooperativa vongolari Sottomarina Lido Soc. coop. rl, and European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Ghezzo Giovanni & C. Snc di Ghezzo Maurizio & C shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case F-11/15: Action brought on 26 January 2015  — ZZ v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/49

         Action brought on 26 January 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-11/15)
   (2015/C 089/60)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions determining the applicant’s rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses under Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the CEOS.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul the decisions cancelling all reimbursement of the applicant’s annual travel expenses as of 2014 onwards;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 3 March 2005 in Case C-414/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure to fulfil obligations — Article 8 of Directive 92/50/EEC — Procedure for awarding contracts for public services — Waste disposal in the Land of Lower Saxony)

text:
               30.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 3 March 2005
   in Case C-414/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

   (Failure to fulfil obligations - Article 8 of Directive 92/50/EEC - Procedure for awarding contracts for public services - Waste disposal in the Land of Lower Saxony)
   (2005/C 106/12)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-414/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Wiedner) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur) and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 3 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by the Landkreis Friesland in the Land of Lower Saxony awarding a contract for the disposal of waste without complying with the rules on advertising and the procedure laid down by Article 8 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts together with Titles III and VI of that directive, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ 2003 C 275 of 15.11.2003.


title: Case T-599/10: Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Eurocool Logistik GmbH v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL)

text:
               5.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 72/22

         Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Eurocool Logistik GmbH v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL)
   (Case T-599/10)
   2011/C 72/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Eurocool Logistik GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Secklehner, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Peter Lenger (Weinheim, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul in full the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2010 in Case R 451/2010-1 in which the Opposition Division’s decision of 27 January 2010 in opposition proceedings No B 751 570 is confirmed, reject the opposition and refer the trade mark back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market for continuation of the registration proceedings and order the defendant to bear all the costs associated with the present legal dispute, in particular the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Eurocool Logistik GmbH

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EUROCOOL’ for services in Classes 39 and 42.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Peter Lenger.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark which contains the word element ‘EUROCOOL LOGISTICS’ for services in Classes 35 and 39, and the company name ‘EUROCOOL LOGISTICS’ used for specific services in national trade.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Uphold the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismiss the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 63(2) and Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the applicant in the opposition proceedings was not afforded the opportunity to reply to the other party’s reasoning for the opposition in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 because there is no likelihood of confusion of the marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-387/09: Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil (Spain)) — Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v Magnatrading SL

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/24

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 November 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Mercantil (Spain)) — Entidad de Gestión de Derechos de los Productores Audiovisuales (EGEDA) v Magnatrading SL
   (Case C-387/09) (1)

   2011/C 63/46
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Appeal brought on 16 December 1998 by Industrie des Poudres Sphériques against the judgment delivered on 15 October 1998 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-2/95 between Industrie des Poudres Sphériques and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Commission of the European Communities, Péchiney Électrométallurgie and the Chambre Syndicale de l'Électrométallurgie et de l'Électrochimie (Case C-458/98 P)

text:
20.2.1999              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 48/17
7. V i o l a t i o n o f t h e    legal   concept      of   the       3. What conditions must be satisfied for the issuer of an
     misuse of powers                                                     invoice to be acting in good faith?
     The Apellant further submits that the Court of First
     Instance made an error of law in applying the concept
     of misuse of powers in that:
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
                                                                      Circondariale di Brescia, by order of 24 November 1998,
     Ð it refused to appraise globally all the relevant and                  in the case of Centrosteel Srl v. Adipol GmbH
         consistent factors raised by the applicant and even
         omitted to examine an important number thereof;                                     (Case C-456/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/27)
     Ð it illegally defined the type of facts which may
         constitute the objective, relevant and consistent            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         factors of a misuse of powers.                               European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                      Circondariale di Brescia (District Magistrate's Court,
                                                                      Brescia) of 24 November 1998, which was received at the
(1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995, p. 22.
(2) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995, p. 17.
                                                                      Court Registry on 14 December 1998, for a preliminary
(3) Council Regulation No 17/62 of 6 February 1962 (First             ruling in the case of Centrosteel Srl v. Adipol GmbH on
    Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty)         the following questions:
    (OJ, English Special Edition 1959Ð1962, p. 87).
(4) Commission Regulation No 99/63/EEC of 25 July 1963 on the         1. What is the interpretation of Articles 52, 53, 54, 55,
    hearings provided for in Article 19(1) and (2) of Regulation          56, 57 and 58 of the EC Treaty; in particular, do
    No 17 (OJ, English Special Edition 1963Ð1964, p. 47).
                                                                          Articles 2 and 9 of Italian Law No 205 of 1985, under
                                                                          which entry in a register is compulsory for any person
                                                                          acting as an agent and an agency contract concluded
                                                                          by a person not entered on that register is void,
                                                                          constitute a restriction on the freedom of
                                                                          establishment?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof             2. Do the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of
by order of that court of 15 October 1998 in the case of                  establishment contained in Articles 52 to 58 preclude
Schmeink & Cofreth AG & Co. KG against Finanzamt                          national legislation which makes the validity of an
 Borken and Manfred Strobel against Finanzamt Esslingen                   agency contract subject to entry of the commercial
                         (Case C-454/98)                                  agent in an appropriate register?
                          (1999/C 48/26)                              3. Do the provisions on freedom to provide services
                                                                          contained in Articles 59 to 66 preclude national
                                                                          legislation which makes the validity of an agency
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    contract subject to the requirement of entry of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                      commercial agent in an appropriate register?
(Federal Finance Court) of 15 October 1998 received at
the Court Registry on 11 December 1998, for a
preliminary ruling in the cases of Schmeink & Cofreth AG
& Co. KG against Finanzamt Borken and Manfred
Strobel against Finanzamt Esslingen on the following
questions:                                                            Appeal brought on 16 December 1998 by Industrie des
                                                                      Poudres SpheÂriques against the judgment delivered on
                                                                      15 October 1998 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended
1. Does Community law require that provision be made                  Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the
     to allow rectification of an improperly invoiced tax as          European Communities in Case T-2/95 between Industrie
     part of the procedure for determining the tax or is it           des Poudres SpheÂriques and the Council of the European
     sufficient for the Member States to permit rectification         Union, supported by the Commission of the European
     only in a later procedure for determining whether                Communities, PeÂchiney EÂlectromeÂtallurgie and the
     payment of the tax is equitable (on objective'                  Chambre Syndicale de l'EÂlectromeÂtallurgie et de
     grounds)?                                                                                l'EÂlectrochimie
                                                                                (Case C-458/98 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/28)
2. Is it an imperative prerequisite for rectifying an
     improperly invoiced tax that the issuer of the invoice
     should demonstrate good faith or are there other                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 October
     circumstances in which an invoice may be rectified               1998 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
     (and, if so, what are those circumstances)?                      Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
 ---pagebreak--- C 48/18               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
Case T-2/95 between Industrie des Poudres SpheÂriques and           Appeal brought on 16 December 1998 by Isabel Martínez
the Council of the European Union, supported by the                 del Peral Cagigal against the order of the First Chamber of
Commission of the European Communities, PeÂchiney                   the Court of First Instance of 14 October 1998 in Case
EÂlectromeÂtallurgie and the Chambre Syndicale de                   T-224/97: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal v.
l'EÂlectromeÂtallurgie et de l'EÂlectrochimie, was brought                   Commission of the European Communities
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                                  (Case C-459/98 P)
on 16 December 1998 by Industrie des Poudres
SpheÂriques, represented by Chantal MomeÁge, of the Paris                                  (1999/C 48/29)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                    An appeal against the order made on 14 October 1998 by
                                                                    the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
The appellant claims that the Court should:                         European Communities in Case T-224/97 between Isabel
                                                                    Martínez del Peral Cagigal and Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities was brought before the Court of
Ð set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First            Justice of the European Communities on 16 December
     Instance on 15 October 1998 in Case T-2/95 and itself          1998 by Isabel Martínez del Peral, represented by Antonio
     give final judgment in the case;                               Creus and BegonÄa Uriarte Valiente, with an address for
                                                                    service at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78
                                                                    Avenue d'Auderghem, Brussels.
Ð order the Council and all the interveners to pay the
     costs of the proceedings for interim measures and on
     the substance of the case before the Court of First            The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
     Instance, together with the costs of the present
     proceedings.
                                                                    Ð allow this case to proceed and accordingly:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                        14 October 1998 in case T-224/97 on the grounds
The judgment of the Court of First Instance disregards                  stated;
Articles 174 and 176 of the EC Treaty and Articles 7(1)
and (9) and 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88
                                                                    Ð give judgment itself on the basis of the submissions of
of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or
                                                                        the appellant in her initial application and, in
subsidised imports from countries not members of the
                                                                        particular:
European Economic Community (1).
                                                                        Ð declare admissible the application lodged by the
Following the annulment, by judgment of the Court of                        appellant, which seeks review of her situation
Justice of 11 June 1992 in Case C-358/89 Extramet v.                        under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, with a
Council [1992] ECR I-3813, of an initial regulation                         view to possible reclassification;
imposing an anti-dumping duty, the institutions were
under an obligation to take the requisite steps to comply               Ð annul the negative decision of 24 October 1996
with that judgment. The Court of First Instance erred in                    rejecting the appellant's request that an appraisal
finding that it was open to the Commission, to that end,                    be undertaken with a view to the possible
to decide to carry out a fresh investigation involving,                     application of Article 31(2) of the Staff
moreover, a different reference period.                                     Regulations; and, so far as necessary, annul the
                                                                            explicit decision of refusal adopted by the
                                                                            Commission on 29 April 1997 in response to the
The judgment of the Court of First Instance disregards the                  appellant's complaint;
fundamental principle of respect for the right to a fair
hearing and the provisions of Articles 7(4) and 8(3) of the
aforementioned Council Regulation.                                      Ð declare that the appellant is entitled to have
                                                                            her initial classification reviewed, with a view
                                                                            to possible reclassification, with financial
The Court of First Instance wrongly considered that the                     consequences as from 5 October 1995.
numerous irregularities found to have occurred in the
course of the administrative procedure, in particular the
                                                                    4. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the
delayed communication of a note submitted by PEM and
                                                                        proceedings at both instances.
the lack of access, in the form of a non-confidential
summary, to certain documents, did not affect the
appellant's procedural rights.                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
(1) OJ L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1.
                                                                    Ð Breach of Community law: the order is not consistent
                                                                        with the case-law of the ECJ and CFI concerning
                                                                        recommencement of the period for instituting