title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 7 March 1996 in Case C-118/94 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto): Associazione Italiana per il World Wildlife Fund and Others v. Regione Veneto (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds - Hunting - Conditions for exercise of the Member States' power to derogate)

text:
22 . 6 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 180/ 1
                                                                  I
                                                           (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
            OPINION 2/94 OF THE COURT                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      of 28 March 1996                                                       ( Fifth Chamber )
(Accession by the Community to the Convention for the                                       of 7 March 1996
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms)                 in Case C-118/94 ( Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          ( 96/C 180/01 )                            the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto ):
                                                                     Associazione Italiana per il World Wildlife Fund and Others
                                                                                v. Regione Veneto (')
The Court of Justice has received a request for an opinion,          (Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild
lodged at the Registry of the Court on 26 April 1 994 ( 1 ),         birds — Hunting — Conditions for exercise of the Member
from the Council of the European Union pursuant to                                     States ' power to derogate)
Article 228 ( 6 ) of the EC Treaty on the following                                            ( 96/C 180/02 )
question :
                                                                                (Language of tbe case: Italian)
'Would the accession of the European Community to the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 be compatible                        published in the European Court Reports)
with the Treaty establishing the European Community ?'
                                                                     In Case C-118 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
The Court composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,           of the EC Treaty by the Tribunale Amministrativo
C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G.            Regionale per il Veneto ( Regional Administrative Court for
Hirsch, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, F. A.                 the Veneto Region, Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the
Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J.       proceedings pending before that court between
G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H.                    Associazione Italiana per il World Wildlife Fund, Ente
Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges, after                   Nazionale per le Protezione Animali , Lega per l'Ambiente —
hearing the views of First Advocate-General Tesauro and              Comitato Regionale, Lega Anti Vivisezione — Delegazione
Advocates-General Lenz, Jacobs, La Pergola, Cosmas,                  Regionale, Lega per l'Abolizione della Caccia, Federnatura
Léger, Elmer, Fennelly and Ruiz-Jarobo Colomer, gave the             Veneto , Italia Nostra — Sezione di Venezia and the Regione
following opinion :                                                  Veneto on the interpretation of Article 9 of Council
                                                                     Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation
                                                                     of wild birds ( OJ No L 103 , 1979 , p . 1 ), the Court ( Fifth
As Community law now stands, the Community has no                    Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward , President of the
competence to accede to the European Convention for the              Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C.
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.                 Gulmann ( Rapporteur ) and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fennelly,
                                                                     Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 1 996 in which it
(') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .                                    ruled that :
                                                                     Article 9 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979
                                                                     on the conservation of wild birds is to be interpreted as
 ---pagebreak---  No C 180/2            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 6 . 96
 meaning that it authorizes the Member States to derogate             2 . Article 3 (1 ) of Directive 77/1 87/EEC does not preclude
 from the general prohibition on hunting protected species                 an employee employed by the transferor at the date of
 laid down by Articles 5 and 7 of the Directive only by                    the transfer of an undertaking from objecting to the
 measures which refer in sufficient detail to the factors                  transfer to the transferee of the contract of employment
 mentioned in Article 9 ( 1 ) and (2).                                     or the emplyoment relationship. In such a case, it is for
                                                                           the Member States to determine what the fate of the
                                                                           contract of employment or employment relationship
 (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                           with the transferor should be. However, where the
                                                                           contract ofemployment or the employment relationship
                                                                           is terminated on account of a change in the level of
                                                                           remuneration awarded to the employee, Article 4 (2) of
                                                                           the Directive requires the Member States to provide that
                                                                           the employer is to be regarded as having been
                                                                           responsible for the termination.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber )                             (•) OJ No C 233 , 20 . 8 . 1994 .
                        of 7 March 1996
in Joined Cases C-171/94 and C-172/94 ( references for a
preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail, Brussels ):
Albert Merckx and Patrick Neuhuys v. Ford Motor
                    Company Belgium SA (')
 (Safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of transfers
 of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses —                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      Concept of a transfer — Transfer of a dealership)                                       ( Sixth Chamber)
                           ( 96/C 180/03 )                                                   of 7 March 1996
                                                                      in Case C-192/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                 (Language of the case: French)                       the Juzgado de Primera Instancia N° 10 de Sevilla ): El Corte
                                                                                Inglés SA v. Cristina Blázquez Rivero ( ] )
                                                                      (Direct effect of unimplemented Directive — Council
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             Directive 87/102/EEC concerning consumer credit)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/04 )
In Joined Cases C-171 /94 and C-172/94 : references to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Cour du                             (Language of the case: Spanish)
Travail ( Higher Labour Court ), Brussels, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Albert Merckx ( C-171 /94 ), Patrick Neuhuys ( C-172/94 )                      published in the European Court Reports)
and Ford Motor Company Belgium SA — on the
interpretation of Council Directive 77/ 1 87/EEC of
 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the            In Case C- 1 92/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees'             of the EC Treaty from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or      N° 10 ( Court of First Instance No 10 ), Seville ( Spain ), for a
parts of businesses ( OJ No L 61 , 1977, p . 26 ) — the Court        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of          court between El Corte Inglés SA and Cristina Blâzquez
the Chamber, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F. A.                     Rivero — on the interpretation of Article 129a of the EC
Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;             Treaty and Article 11 of Council Directive 87/ 102/EEC of
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau ,                  22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              regulations and administrative provisions of the Member
judgment on 7 March 1996 , in which it rules :                       States concerning consumer credit ( OJ No L 42 , 1987, p . 48 )
                                                                     — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris,
                                                                     President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G.
1 . Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of               Kapteyn, J. L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O.
      7 4 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of          Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
     the Member States relating to the safeguarding of               judgment on 7 March 1996 , in which it rules :
     employees ' rights in the event of transfers of
     undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be
     interpreted as applying where an undertaking holding a          In the absence of measures implementing Council Directive
     motor vehicle dealership for a particular territory             87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation
     discontinues its activities and the dealership is then          of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
     transferred to another undertaking which takes on part          Member States concerning consumer credit within the
     of the staff and is recommended to customers, without           prescribed period, a consumer may not, even in view of
     any transfer of assets.                                         Article 129a of the EC Treaty, base a right of action on the


title: Case T-282/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008 — Ceuninck v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Appointment — Post of adviser to OLAF — Rejection of candidature — Powers of the Director-General of OLAF — Validity of vacancy notice — Breach of the rules for appointing officials in Grades A4 and A5 — Misuse of powers — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/18

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 June 2008 — Ceuninck v Commission
   (Case T-282/03) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Appointment - Post of adviser to OLAF - Rejection of candidature - Powers of the Director-General of OLAF - Validity of vacancy notice - Breach of the rules for appointing officials in Grades A4 and A5 - Misuse of powers - Manifest error of assessment)
   (2008/C 183/36)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Paul Ceuninck (Hertsberge, Belgium) (represented by: initally G. Vandersanden and A. Finchelstein, then G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)
   Re:
   First, an application for annulment of Vacancy Notice COM/051/02 and of the entire procedure pursuant to that notice and, second, an application for annulment of the decision appointing Ms S taken by the Appointing Authority on 13 September 2002 and of the implied decision rejecting the applicant's candidature.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr. Paul Ceuninck and the Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251 of 18.3.2004.


title: Case F-70/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Baele and Others v Commission

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/36

         Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Baele and Others v Commission
   (Case F-70/06)
   (2006/C 190/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Jan Baele (Beernem, Belgium) and others (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the refusal of the Appointing Authority to enter the applicants on the list of officials promoted to grades A*10 and B*10 under the 2005 promotion exercise such as those decisions implicitly result from Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005;

               —

               Inform the Appointing Authority of the consequences of annulling the contested decisions, and in particular the reclassification of the applicants' grades to grade A*10 with retroactive effect from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2005, as appropriate;

               —

               In the alternative: (1) request the defendant to acknowledge that the applicants are eligible for promotion to grade A*10 or to grade B*10, as appropriate, on their next promotion and (2) order it to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants as a result of not having been promoted to grade A*10 from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 from 1 January 2005, as appropriate;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of their action, the applicants put forward pleas identical to those put forward in Case F-45/06 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 143, 17.06.2006, p. 39.


title: Order of the Court of 2 March 1999 in Case C-422/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Colonia Versicherung AG Zweigniederlassung München and Others v Belgian State (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 136/4                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         15.5.1999
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,                                      ORDER OF THE COURT
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 March 1999, in
which it has ruled:                                                                                of 2 March 1999
It is contrary to Articles 52 and 58 of the EC Treaty for a Member
State to refuse to register a branch of a company formed in accordance     in Joined Cases C-231/98 and C-232/98 (reference for a
with the law of another Member State in which it has its registered        preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance
office but in which it conducts no business where the branch is            d’Épinal: SA Lamboley (C-231/98), Bouctot (C-232/98) v
intended to enable the company in question to carry on its entire                           Administration des Impôts (1)
business in the State in which that branch is to be created, while
avoiding the need to form a company there, thus evading application        (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Manifestly
of the rules governing the formation of companies which, in that                                   identical question)
State, are more restrictive as regards the paying up of a minimum
share capital. That interpretation does not, however, prevent the
authorities of the Member State concerned from adopting any                                         (1999/C 136/07)
appropriate measure for preventing or penalising fraud, either in
relation to the company itself, if need be in cooperation with the
Member State in which it was formed, or in relation to its members,                            (Language of the case: French)
where it has been established that they are in fact attempting, by
means of the formation of a company, to evade their obligations            In joined Cases C-231/98 and C-232/98: reference to the
towards private or public creditors established in the territory of the    Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de
Member State concerned.                                                    Grande Instance d’Épinal (France) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                           the proceedings pending before that court between SA Lam-
(1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                                   boley (C-231/98), Bouctot (C-232/98) and Administration des
                                                                           Impôts on the interpretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty —
                                                                           the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
                                                                           P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann,
                                                                           Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
                                                                           Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H.
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                    Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;
                                                                           F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
                                                                           order on 2 March 1999, the operative part of which is as
                            of 2 March 1999                                follows:
in Case C-422/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Colonia                   Article 95 of the EC Treaty does not preclude the application of
Versicherung AG Zweigniederlassung München and                             national rules on motor vehicle taxation which provide for an increase
                      Others v Belgian State (1)                           in the progression coefficient of the kind at issue in the main
                                                                           proceedings, in so far as that increase does not have the effect of
    (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)                 favouring the sales of vehicles of domestic manufacture over the sale
                                                                           of vehicles imported from other Member States.
                            (1999/C 136/06)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.1998.
                     (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-422/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de Première Instance de
Bruxelles for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Colonia Versicherung AG Zweignie-
derlassung München and Others v Belgian State on the
interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court,                 Action brought on 10 February 1999 by the Commission
composed of: G. C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kap-           of the European Communities against the French Republic
teyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann (Rapporteur),
Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H. Ragne-                                        (Case C-38/99)
malm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 2 March                                          (1999/C 136/08)
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:
The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de             An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Première Instance de Bruxelles, by judgment of 10 November 1998,           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February
is inadmissible.                                                           1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, and
                                                                           Olivier Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment
(1) OJ C 20, 23.1.1999.                                                    to the Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
                                                                           Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case T-353/00: Action brought on 21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le Pen against European Parliament

text:
27.1.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 28/27
—     The Registry may serve documents by fax or e-mail,                       —     the promotions were decided upon in the absence
      provided that the lawyer or agent concerned has agreed                         of any staff report on the applicant or of any other
      to service being effected in that way.                                         document to palliate its absence;
—     Where the lawyer or agent has agreed to service being                    —     the applicant’s merits were erroneously assessed; and
      effected in that way, the statement of an address for
      service in Luxembonrg is optional.
                                                                               —     the promotions procedure is vitiated by the fact that
                                                                                it was based on reports drawn up on the basis of a
—     There is to be a single, uniform ten-day extension of the                      system of awarding points which disregards the
      time-limit on account of distance, regardless of the                           ‘Guide de la notation’.
      location of the party concerned.
Practice directions concerning the detailed implementation of
these amendments will be issued and promulgated in due
course.
                                                                         Action brought on 21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le
                                                                                Pen against European Parliament
Action brought on 20 November 2000 by Hubert Huy-                                                 (Case T-353/00)
 gens against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2001/C 28/50)
                        (Case T-351/00)
                         (2001/C 28/49)                                                     (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: French)                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                                                                         21 November 2000 by Jean-Marie Le Pen, residing in St Cloud
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                (France), represented by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 November 2000 by Hubert
Huygens, residing in Olm (Luxembourg), represented by Sylvie             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Nyssens, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                         —     declare the contested measure null and void;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     award the applicant FRF 50 000 in non-returnable dam-
—     annul the decision of the Commission of the European                     ages;
      Communities not to promote the applicant to Grade B 1
      in the 2000 promotions procedure;
                                                                         —     order the European Parliament to pay the costs.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament (MEP),
                                                                         contests the decision taken by the President of the European
—     Infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and            Parliament on 23 October 2000 taking note, in accordance
      breach of the rights of the defence inasmuch as no                 with Article 12(2) of the Act of 20 September 1976 concerning
      reasons have been provided for the contested decision.             the election of representatives to the European Parliament by
                                                                         direct universal suffrage, of the notification from the French
—     Infringement of Articles 26, 43 and 45 of the Staff                Government of the termination of the term of office of Jean-
      Regulations and breach of the principles of equal treat-           Marie Le Pen as MEP. That decision was taken after he was
      ment and sound administration, inasmuch as:                        found guilty of a criminal offence by a French criminal court.
 ---pagebreak--- C 28/28                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.1.2001
In support of his application the applicant alleges that:                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     there is nothing in the Act of 20 September 1976 or in             —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament                        Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
      permitting the Member States to terminate, for national                  Marks and Designs) of 12 September 2000 in Case
      reasons, the term of office of an MEP, other than in cases               R 142/2000-3,
      of incompatibilities arising during the term of office,
      which is not the case here;                                        —     order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                               (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
—     such a measure is all the more contrary to the principles
      of Community law inasmuch as it is the result of an
      entirely national decision, which cannot by itself be the          Pleas in law and main arguments
      basis for a Community decision;
                                                                         Mark:                         Word mark ‘TELE AID’ — Appli-
—     there is a general legal principle based on the generally                                        cation No 469 957
      applicable rules of law of the Member States which means
      that termination must be decided by the parliamentary              Goods or services:            Goods and services in Classes 12,
      assembly concerned itself;                                                                       9, 37, 38, 39 and 42 (including
                                                                                motor vehicles, motor vehicle
—     the substantive procedural rules have been disregarded in                                        repair, equipment for the trans-
      the present case inasmuch as the Legal Affairs Committee                                         mission of speech and data, emer-
      was not convened and the applicant was not given a                                               gency call systems for motor
      hearing by that committee;                                                                       vehicles, breakdown assistance,
                                                                                rescue services)
—     in the contested measure, the President of the European            Decision        contested     Refusal by the examiner to register
      Parliament purportedly spoke on behalf of the Parliament           beforethe     Board of
      when she did not have the authority to do so.                      Appeal:
                                                                         Pleas in law:                 — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principles of                                                 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
parliamentary immunity and legal certainty.
                                                                                — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)
                                                                                of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-                     Action brought on 24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrys-
ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       ler AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                        (Case T-355/00)                                                          (Case T-356/00)
                         (2001/C 28/51)                                                           (2001/C 28/52)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal           Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                   24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, of Stuttgart
24 November 2000 by Daimler Chrysler AG, Stuttgart,                      (Germany), represented by Stefan Völker, Rechtsanwalt, of
Germany, represented by Stefan Völker of Gleiss Lutz Hootz               Messrs Gleiss Lutz Hootz Hirsch, Rechtsanwälte, Stuttgart,
Hirsch, Stuttgart, Germany.                                              Germany.


title: Case T-643/11: Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014  — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council (Dumping — Imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in China — Review — Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 — Rights of defence — Error of fact — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2014 — Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council
   (Case T-643/11) (1)

   ((Dumping - Imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in China - Review - Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 - Rights of defence - Error of fact - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 046/53)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd (Suzhou, China); and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG (Roding, Germany) (represented by: K. Neuhaus, H.-J. Freund and B. Ecker, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, and initially by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, and subsequently by A. Polcyn and D. Gerardin, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1008/2011 of 10 October 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in the People’s Republic of China as extended to imports of hand pallet trucks and their essential parts consigned from Thailand, whether declared as originating in Thailand or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (OJ 2011 L 268, p. 1), in so far as that regulation concerns the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders Crown Equipment (Suzhou) Co. Ltd and Crown Gabelstapler GmbH & Co. KG to bear their own costs and to pay four fifths of those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

               3)

               Orders the Council to bear one fifth of its own costs;

               4)

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 49, 18.2.2012.


title: Case C-480/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'arbitrage by judgment of that Court of 29 October 2003 in the case brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region

text:
C 35/4                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          7.2.2004
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’arbitrage                      (a)   in the relevant circumstances, was the Appellant a
by judgment of that Court of 29 October 2003 in the case                              ‘taxable person acting as such’ within Art.2(1) of the
       brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region                                   Sixth Directive when, in the 26 transactions, it
                                                                                acquired the CPUs from the UK vendors and sold
                                                                                them to the non-UK purchasers?
                         (Case C-480/03)
                                                                                (b) in the relevant circumstances, was the Appellant
                          (2004/C 35/05)                                              carrying on an ‘economic activity’ within Art.4 of
                                                                                the Sixth Directive when, in the 26 transactions, it
                                                                                acquired the CPUs from the UK vendors and sold
                                                                                them to the non-UK purchasers?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’arbitrage
                                                                                (c)   in the relevant circumstances, was the acquisition by
of 29 October 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                                the Appellant, in the 26 transactions, of the CPUs
18 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                                from the UK vendors a ‘supply of goods’ to the
brought by H. Clerens against Walloon Region on the follow-
                                                                                Appellant within Art.5(1) of the Sixth Directive?
ing questions:
1.    Must Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April on the                       (d) in the relevant circumstances, was the sale by the
      conservation of wild birds (1) be interpreted as not                            Appellant, in the 26 transactions, of the CPUs to the
      authorising Member States to introduce rules which also                         non-UK purchasers a ‘supply of goods’ by the
      apply to birds mentioned in Annex I to the Directive that                       Appellant within Art.5(1) of the Sixth Directive?
      are born and reared in captivity?
                                                                          2.    Do the answers to Question l(a)-(d) above give rise to any
2.    Must that directive be interpreted as authorising Member                  breach of the general principles of Community law (in
      States to lay down rules to protect birds born and reared                 particular, the principles of proportionality and legal
      in captivity only to the extent that those rules apply solely             certainty)?
      to trade in those birds, or may those rules apply to all the
      operations which trade in birds may entail?
(1) OJ L 103 of 25.04.1979, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 1 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                                (Case C-507/03)
Justice (England & Wales) Chancery Division by order of
that court dated 27 October 2003, in the case of Bond
House Systems Ltd against Commissioners of Customs                                                  (2004/C 35/07)
                            and Excise
                         (Case C-484/03)
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                          (2004/C 35/06)                                  Justice of the European Communities on 1 December 2003 by
                                                                          the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                          by K. Wiedner, acting as agent, assisted by J. E. Flynn QC,
                                                                          Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales) Chancery Division dated 27 October              The Applicant claims that the Court should:
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 19 Novem-
ber 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Bond House
Systems Ltd and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the                1.    declare that, in deciding to entrust the provision of
following questions:                                                            services to An Post without undertaking any prior
                                                                                advertising, Ireland has failed to comply with its obli-
1.    Having regard to the general principles of EC law (in                     gations under the Treaty; and
      particular, the principles of proportionality and legal
      certainty) and to Article 28 of the EC Treaty:                      2.    order Ireland to pay the Commission’s costs.


title: Case C-532/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 October 2016 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v AB SEB bankas

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/28

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 18 October 2016 — Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos v AB SEB bankas

   (Case C-532/16)
   (2017/C 006/35)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Other party: AB SEB bankas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 184 to 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the deduction adjustment mechanism provided for in Directive 2006/112 is not applicable in cases where an initial deduction of value added tax (VAT) could not have been made at all because the transaction in question was an exempt transaction relating to the supply of land?

               2.

               Is the answer to the first question affected by the fact that (1) the VAT on the purchase of the plots of land was initially deducted because of the tax administration’s practice under which the supply in question was incorrectly regarded as being a supply of building land subject to VAT, as provided for in Article 12(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112, and/or (2) after the initial deduction made by the purchaser, the supplier of the land issued a VAT credit note to the purchaser adjusting the amounts of VAT indicated (specified) on the initial invoice?

               3.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, are, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 184 and/or 185 of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that, in a case where an initial deduction could not have been made at all because the transaction in question was exempt from VAT, the taxable person’s obligation to adjust that deduction must be considered to have arisen immediately or only when it became known that the initial deduction could not have been made?

               4.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Directive 2006/112, and in particular Articles 179, 184 to 186 and 250 thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the adjusted amounts of deductible input VAT must be deducted in the tax period in which the taxable person’s obligation and/or right to adjust the initial deduction arose?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-105/05: Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/29

         Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-105/05)
   (2005/C 115/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 February 2005 by Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Limited, established in Stellenbosch (South Africa), represented by P. Hagman, lawyer.
   Waterford Wedgwood Plc, established in Waterford (Ireland) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 15 December 2004 and establish that the applied Community trade mark application No 1 438 860‘WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH’ is not confusingly similar with the Community trade mark registration No 397 521 ‘WATERFORD’;

               —

               remit the case to OHIM for registration purposes;

               —

               order the defendant OHIM and the opponent and co-defendant Waterford Wedgwood Plc to pay the applicant's costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Assembled Investments (Propietary) Limited

               Community trade mark concerned:

               The figurative mark ‘Waterford Stellenbosch’ for goods in class 33 (alcoholic beverages including wines) — application No 1 438 860

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Waterford Wedgwood Plc

               Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

               The Community word mark ‘WATERFORD’ for goods in classes 3, 8, 11, 21, 24 and 34 (Perfumery products, essential oils; cutlery; lamps; articles of glassware; …) — Community trade mark No 397 521

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Rejection of the opposition

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the application

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(5) and 74(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks and that there is no persuasive evidence that the earlier mark would be detrimentally affected or that an unfair advantage would be taken.


title: Judgment of the Court of 21 March 2000 in Case C-6/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État): Association Greenpeace France and Others v Ministère de l'Agriculture et de la Pêche and Others (Directive 90/220/EEC — Biotechnology — Genetically modified organisms — Decision 97/98/EC — Maize seeds)

text:
27.5.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 149/7
In those circumstances, the security provided for in Article 31(1) of          an objection, in accordance with Article 13(2) of that directive,
Regulation No 3665/87 must be released and only the amount paid                or if the Commission has taken a ‘favourable decision’ under
by way of advance payment of the export refund must be reimbursed              paragraph (4) of that provision, the competent authority which
by the exporter in accordance with the national provisions applicable          forwarded the application, with a favourable opinion, to the
to repayment of sums unduly paid.                                              Commission must issue the ‘consent in writing’, allowing the
                                                                               product to be placed on the market. However, if in the meantime
                                                                               the Member State concerned has new information which leads it
(1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.                                                     to consider that the product for which notification has been
                                                                               received may constitute a risk to human health and the
                                                                               environment, it will not be obliged to give its consent, provided
                                                                               that it immediately informs the Commission and the other
                                                                               Member States about the new information in order that, within
                                                                               the period laid down in Article 16(2) of Directive 90/220, a
                                                                               decision may be taken in the matter in accordance with the
                                                                               procedure provided for in Article 21 of that directive.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           2. Where the national court finds that, owing to irregularities in
                          of 21 March 2000                                     the conduct of the examination of the notification by the
                                                                               competent national authority provided for in Article 12(1) of
                                                                               Directive 90/220, it was not proper for that authority to forward
in Case C-6/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the dossier with a favourable opinion to the Commission as
the Conseil d’État): Association Greenpeace France and
                                                                               provided for in paragraph (2) of that provision, that court must
Others v Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche and
                                                                               refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling if
                              Others (1)
                                                                               it considers that those irregularities are such as to affect the
                                                                               validity of the Commission’s favourable decision, if necessary
(Directive 90/220/EEC — Biotechnology — Genetically                            ordering the suspension of application of the measures for
 modified organisms — Decision 97/98/EC — Maize seeds)                         implementing that decision until the Court of Justice has ruled
                                                                               on the question of validity.
                           (2000/C 149/11)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-6/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Conseil d’État,                                           (Sixth Chamber)
France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Association Greenpeace France and                                         of 23 March 2000
Others and Ministère de l’Agriculture et de la Pêche and
Others, third parties: Novartis Seeds SA, Monsanto Europe SA               in Case C-373/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
— on the interpretation of Article 13(2) and (4) of Council                the Polimeles Protodikio Athinon): Dionisios Diamantis
Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate                    v Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) and Organismos Ikono-
release into the environment of genetically modified organisms                    mikis Anasinkrotisis Epikhiriseon AE (OAE) (1)
(OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15), as amended by Commission Directive
97/35/EC of 18 June 1997 adapting to technical progress for                (Company law — Second Directive 77/91/EEC — Public
the second time Council Directive 90/220 (OJ 1997 L 169,                   limited liability company in financial difficulties — Increase
p. 72) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                 in the capital of the company by administrative decision —
President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen            Abuse of a right arising from a provision of Community
(Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), C. Gul-                                              law)
mann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and
F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von                                               (2000/C 149/12)
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 21 March 2000, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
1. Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the
     deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified
     organisms, as amended by Commission Directive 97/35/EC of             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     18 June 1997 adapting to technical progress for the second time                          in the European Court Reports)
     Council Directive 90/220, is to be interpreted as meaning that,
     if, after an application for placing a GMO on the market has          In Case C-373/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
     been forwarded to the Commission, no Member State has raised          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Polimeles


title: Case C-39/09 P: Order of the Court of 22 March 2010 — Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) v Council of the European Union, European Commission (Appeal — Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Common organisation of the banana market — Arrangements for importing bananas originating in ACP countries into the Community — Loss allegedly suffered by an independent producer — Failure to comply with the rules on competition in the field of the common agricultural policy — Infringement of general principles of law and, in particular, of the principle of sound administration — Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/17

         Order of the Court of 22 March 2010 — Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) v Council of the European Union, European Commission
   (Case C-39/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 119 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Non-contractual liability of the Community - Common organisation of the banana market - Arrangements for importing bananas originating in ACP countries into the Community - Loss allegedly suffered by an independent producer - Failure to comply with the rules on competition in the field of the common agricultural policy - Infringement of general principles of law and, in particular, of the principle of sound administration - Appeal manifestly inadmissible or manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 234/25
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) (represented by: A. Farache, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: A. De Gregorio Merino, E. Sitbon, Agents), European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2008 in Case T-128/05 SPM v Council and Commission, by which the Court dismissed the appellant’s action seeking damages for the loss which it suffered as a result of the allegedly illegal rules adopted by the Council and the Commission on the import of bananas into the Community — Non-contractual liability of the Community — Bananas originating in ACP countries — Loss allegedly suffered by an independent producer — Failure to comply with the rules on competition in the field of the common agricultural policy — Infringement of general principles of law and, in particular, of the principle of sound administration

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009


title: Case F-24/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Abarca Montiel and Others v Commission (Staff cases — Members of the contract staff — Grading and remuneration — Office for Infrastructure and Logistics Brussels (OIB) — Nursery attendants — Former salaried employees under Belgian law — Change of applicable regime — Equal treatment)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/46

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2007 — Abarca Montiel and Others v Commission
   (Case F-24/06) (1)

   (Staff cases - Members of the contract staff - Grading and remuneration - Office for Infrastructure and Logistics Brussels (OIB) - Nursery attendants - Former salaried employees under Belgian law - Change of applicable regime - Equal treatment)
   (2007/C 199/89)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Sabrina Abarca Montiel (Wauthier–Braine, Belgium) and Others (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Martin and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision dismissing the applicants' complaints brought against the decisions fixing their grades and remuneration as members of the contract staff.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions by which the Commission of the European Communities fixed the applicants' remuneration under the contracts for members of the contract staff signed in April 2005;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay half of the applicants' costs;

               4.

               Orders the applicants to bear half of their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 108, 6.5.2006, p. 33.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 April 1999 in Case C-272/97: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Reasoned opinion - Principle of collegiality - Directive 90/605/EEC amending the scope of Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC - Annual accounts and consolidated accounts)

text:
C 204/4                    EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          17.7.1999
1. Declares that, by accepting undertakings from water companies              1. Dismisses the appeal;
     for the purpose of ensuring that water complies with the
     requirements of Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980             2. Orders Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH to pay the costs.
     relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption,
     without the conditions governing the acceptance of such under-
     takings being specified in the Water Industry Act 1991, the              (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
     United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under that
     directive;
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
     Ireland to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 370 of 7.12.1996.
                                                                                of 22 April 1999
                                                                              in Case C-272/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
                                                                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      Reasoned opinion — Principle of collegiality — Directive
                                                                              90/605/EEC amending the scope of Directives 78/660/EEC
                                                                              and 83/349/EEC — Annual accounts and consolidated
                              (First Chamber)                                                                  accounts)
                             of 22 April 1999                                                             (1999/C 204/07)
in Case C-161/97 P: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                                                 (Language of the case: German)
(Euratom Treaty — Action for annulment and action for                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
damages — Conclusion of a contract for the supply of                                               in the European Court Reports)
uranium — Simplified procedure — Powers of the Agency
— Time-limit for conclusion of the contract — Legal obstacle
to conclusion — Diversification policy — Origin of the                        In Case C-272/97: Commission of the European Communities
                 uranium — Market-related prices)                             (Agents: António Caeiro and Jürgen Grunwald) v Federal
                                                                              Republic of Germany (Agents: Ernst Röder and Alfred Dittrich)
                                                                              — application for a declaration that, by failing to implement
                             (1999/C 204/06)                                  within the prescribed period all measures necessary to comply
                                                                              with Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November 1990
                                                                              amending Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and
                      (Language of the case: German)                          Directive 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the
                                                                              scope of those Directives (OJ 1990 L 317, p. 60), the Federal
                                                                              Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of
                      in the European Court Reports)                          P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Man-
                                                                              cini, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges;
In Case C-161/97 P: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH, a                          G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
company incorporated under German law, established in                         judgment on 22 April 1999, in which it:
Lingen, Germany, represented by Bernd Kunth, Gerhard
Wiedemann and Helmut Nicolaus, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf,                     1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Alex Bonn, 22 Côte d’Eich — appeal against the judgment                           comply with Council Directive 90/605/EEC of 8 November
of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended                           1990 amending Directive 78/660/EEC on annual accounts and
Composition) of 25 February 1997 in Joined Cases T-149/94                         Directive 83/349/EEC on consolidated accounts as regards the
and T-181/94 Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems v Commission                                scope of those Directives, the Federal Republic of Germany has
[1997] ECR II-161, seeking to have that judgment set aside,                       failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
the other party to the proceedings being Commission of the
European Communities (Agent: Jürgen Grunwald) — the Court                     2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),                          (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
22 April 1999, in which it:


title: Case C-489/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Vandoorne NV v Belgische Staat (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 11.C(1) and 27(1) and (5) — Taxable amount — Simplification measures — Manufactured tobacco — Tax labels — Single charge of VAT at source — Intermediate supplier — Total or partial non-payment of the price — Refusal to refund VAT)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 27 January 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Gent — Belgium) — Vandoorne NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-489/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 11.C(1) and 27(1) and (5) - Taxable amount - Simplification measures - Manufactured tobacco - Tax labels - Single charge of VAT at source - Intermediate supplier - Total or partial non-payment of the price - Refusal to refund VAT)
   2011/C 80/07
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Beroep te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vandoorne NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Gent — Interpretation of Articles 11.C(1) and 27 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) — Simplification measures — National legislation providing for VAT to be charged at source in the case of manufactured tobacco imported, acquired or produced within the country, precluding a reduction in the basis of assessment for taxpayers who have paid tax on those products

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 11.C(1) and 27(1) and (5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 2004/7/EC of 20 January 2004, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, by providing, for the purposes of simplifying the procedure for charging value added tax and of combating tax evasion or avoidance in regard to manufactured tobacco, for the levying of that tax by means of tax labels, in a single charge and at source, from the manufacturer or importer of those products, excludes intermediate suppliers operating at a subsequent stage in the supply chain from the right to obtain reimbursement of value added tax in the event of non-payment by the purchaser of the price for those products.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.02.2010.


title: Case C-255/10: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Roma — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Alessandro Sacchi (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Betting and gaming — Collection of bets on sporting events — Licensing requirement — Consequences of an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences — Award of 16300 additional licences — Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency — Principle of legal certainty — Protection of holders of earlier licences — National legislation — Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets — Whether permissible — Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence — Prohibition under national legislation — Whether permissible)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/10

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Roma — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Alessandro Sacchi
   (Case C-255/10) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Betting and gaming - Collection of bets on sporting events - Licensing requirement - Consequences of an infringement of European Union law in the awarding of licences - Award of 16 300 additional licences - Principle of equal treatment and the obligation of transparency - Principle of legal certainty - Protection of holders of earlier licences - National legislation - Mandatory minimum distances between betting outlets - Whether permissible - Cross-border activities analogous to those engaged in under the licence - Prohibition under national legislation - Whether permissible)
   2012/C 151/17
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Roma

      Criminal proceedings against

   Alessandro Sacchi

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale ordinario di Roma — Free movement of persons — Freedom to provide services — Activity of collecting bets — Domestic legislation making the exercise of that activity conditional upon the obtaining of a public security authorisation and permit — Protection afforded to persons obtaining authorisations and permits by means of award procedures that unlawfully excluded other operators from the same sector — Whether compatible with Articles 43 EC and 49 EC

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and the principles of equal treatment and effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a Member State which, in breach of European Union law, has excluded a category of operators from the award of licences to engage in a particular economic activity and which seeks to remedy that breach by putting out to tender a significant number of new licences, from protecting the market positions acquired by the existing operators, by providing inter alia that a minimum distance must be observed between the establishments of new licence holders and those of existing operators.

               2.

               Articles 43 EC and 49 EC must be interpreted as precluding the imposition of penalties for engaging in the organised activity of collecting bets without a licence or police authorisation on persons who are linked to an operator which was excluded, in breach of European Union law, from an earlier tendering procedure, even following the new tendering procedure intended to remedy that breach of European Union law, in so far as that tendering procedure and the subsequent award of new licences have not in fact remedied the exclusion of that operator from the earlier tendering procedure.

               3.

               It follows from Articles 43 EC and 49 EC, the principle of equal treatment, the obligation of transparency and the principle of legal certainty that the conditions and detailed rules of a tendering procedure such as that at issue in the case before the referring court and, in particular, the provisions concerning the withdrawal of licences granted under that tendering procedure, such as those laid down in Article 23(2)(a) and (3) of the model contract between the Independent Authority for the Administration of State Monopolies and the successful tenderer for the licence for betting on events other than horse races, must be drawn up in a clear, precise and unequivocal manner, a matter which it is for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: Case T-293/14: Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Cyprus v OHIM (HALLOUMI)

text:
               28.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/21

         Action brought on 28 April 2014 — Cyprus v OHIM (HALLOUMI)
   (Case T-293/14)
   2014/C 245/29
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Cyprus (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and V. Marsland, Solicitor)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 February 2014 given in Case R 1503/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HALLOUMI’ for goods in Class 29 — Community trade mark application No 11 570 124

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (b) CTMR.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-142/89: Usines Gustave Boël SA v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty)

text:
3 . 6 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 137/ 17
Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 Rue Philippe II,                        annulment      of   Commission      Decision  89/515/EEC     of
T-107/89 , Chemie Holding AG, whose registered office is in            2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
Linz ( Austria ), represented by Otfried Lieberknecht,                 the EEC Treaty ( IV/3 1 . 553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989
Rechtsanwalt, Diisseldorf, with an address for service in              L 260 , p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber ),
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 22 Cote d'Eich,               composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.
T-l 12/89 , The Dow Chemical Company, whose registered                 Vesterdorf, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts , Judges;
office is in Midland , Michigan ( United States of America ),          H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
represented by Arved Deringer, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,                  which the Court :
Pierre Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, and Jose Perez Santos, of
the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg              I. dismisses the application;
at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter , 11 Rue Goethe,
v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : J.                2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Currall, B. J. Drijber, F. E. Gonzalez Diaz, E. Morgan de
Rivery, R. Morresi , N. Forwood and A. Bohlke ) —                      (») OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
application for annulment of Commission Decision
89/191 /EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( IV/31.866 , LdPE )
( OJ 1989 L 74 , p. 21 ), — the Court of First Instance ( Second
Chamber ), composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President,
D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, C. P. Briët and J. Biancarelli,         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April                                    ( First Chamber )
 1995 , in which it :
                                                                                of 6 April 1995
 1 . dismisses the objection ofinadmissibility put forward by          in Case T-142/89 : Usines Gustave Boel SA v. Commission
      the Commission in Case T-l 03/89;                                               of the European Communities (^
                                                                        (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
2 . annuls Commission Decision 89/191 /EEC of                                                         Treaty)
      21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
      Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.866, LdPE);                                             ( 95/C 137/41 )
 3 . dismisses the claims for a declaration that Commission                            (Language of the Case: French)
      Decision 89/191 /EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to
      a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty             In Case T-142/89 : Usines Gustave Boel SA, established in
       (IV/31.866, LdPE) is non-existent;
                                                                        Brussels , represented by Georges Vandersanden and Lucette
 4 . dismisses as inadmissible the claim for compensation in            Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
       Case T-l 05/89 ;                                                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Rue
                                                                        Guillaume , v. Commission of the European Communities
 5 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                            ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa, J. Currall, A. Coutrelis and N.
                                                                        Coutrelis ) — application for the annulment of Commission
 (') OJ No C 182 , 19 . 7 . 1989 and OJ No C 177, 13 . 7 . 1989 .       Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989 relating to a
                                                                        proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553
                                                                        — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L 260 , p. 1 ) — the Court of
                                                                        First Instance ( First Chamber ) composed of H. Kirschner,
                                                                        President, C. W. Bellamy, B. Vesterdorf, R.
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges , H. Jung,
                                                                        Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which the
                          ( First Chamber )                             Court :
                          of 6 April 1995
 in Case T-141/89: Tréfileurope Sales SARL v. Commission                1 . reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
               of the European Communities (*)                              by Article 3 of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of
                                                                            2 August 1 989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
  (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the                          of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh) to
                                Treaty)                                     ECU 440 000;
                            ( 95/C 137/40 )
                                                                        2 . dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                 (Language of the Case: French)                             claims;
 In Case T-141 /89 : Trefileurope Sales SARL, formerly called           3 . orders the applicant to bear its costs and to pay
 Trefilarbed SA, then Trefilarbed Luxembourg-Saarbrücken                    three-fifths of the Commission 's costs;
 SARL, established in Luxembourg, represented by
 Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address for             4 . orders the Commission to bear two-fifths of its costs.
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch,
  11 Rue Goethe , v. Commission of the European                          (M OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
  Communities ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa, J. Currall, A.
  Coutrelis and N. Coutrelis ) — application for the


title: Case C-459/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 89/391/EEC — Capabilities and aptitudes of persons designated to carry out activities related to protection against and prevention of occupational hazards in undertakings)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-459/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 89/391/EEC - Capabilities and aptitudes of persons designated to carry out activities related to protection against and prevention of occupational hazards in undertakings)
   (2006/C 190/06)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Kreppel, J. Enegren and V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and K. Wistrand, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete transposition of Article 7(8) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1) — Definitions of capabilities and aptitudes of workers designated by the employer to carry out activities related to protection against and prevention of occupational hazards in undertakings
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Sweden to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 19.02.2005.


title: Case C-453/13: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency (Protection of health — Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 — Hygiene rules for food of animal origin — Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 — Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’  — Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 — Prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies — Consumer protection — Directive 2000/13/EC — Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/9

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of: Newby Foods Ltd v Food Standards Agency
   (Case C-453/13) (1)

   ((Protection of health - Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 - Hygiene rules for food of animal origin - Annex I, points 1.14 and 1.15 - Concepts of ‘mechanically separated meat’ and ‘meat preparations’ - Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 - Prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - Consumer protection - Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs))
   (2014/C 462/15)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Queen, on the application of: Newby Foods Ltd

      Defendant: Food Standards Agency

      Operative part of the judgment

   Points 1.14 and 1.15 of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin must be interpreted as meaning that the product obtained by the mechanical removal of meat from flesh-bearing bones after boning or from poultry carcases must be classified as ‘mechanically separated meat’ within the meaning of that point 1.14, since the process used results in a loss or modification of the muscle fibre structure which is greater than that which is strictly confined to the cutting point, irrespective of the fact that the technique used does not alter the structure of the bones used. Such a product cannot be classified as a ‘meat preparation’ within the meaning of that point 1.15.

      (1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013.