title: Case C-463/00: Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
24.2.2001               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 61/3
Under Community law, in particular under the principle of                   Action brought on 21 December 2000 by the Commission
Community solidarity contained in Article 10 EC, and in the                 of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
circumstances described in the grounds of this decision (1), is                                           Spain
an administrative body required to reopen a decision which
has become final in order to ensure the full operation of
Community law, as it is to be interpreted in the light of a                                          (Case C-463/00)
subsequent preliminary ruling?
                                                                                (2001/C 61/07)
(1) In this case the appellant exhausted the legal remedies available to
    (although the College did not seek a preliminary ruling under (the      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before the
    present) Article 234 at the time) and the College gave an               Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 December
    interpretation of European law on a specific point which proved         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    subsequently to differ from the Court’s interpretation in a later       represented by Maria Patakia and Manuel Desantes, with an
    judgment.                                                               address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                            Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    Declare that Article 2 and Article 3(1) and (2), together
                                                                                with Article 1, of Law 5/1995 (1), and the implementing
                                                                                decrees enacted under Article 4 thereof (Royal Decrees
                                                                                No 3/1996 of 15 January 1996 concerning Repsol, No
                                                                                8/1997 of 10 January 1997 concerning Telefónica de
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d’Appello                         España, No 40/1998 of 16 January 1998 concerning
di Milano by order of that court of 25 October 2000 in                            Argentaria, No 562/1998 of 2 April 1998 concerning
the case of VIS Farmaceutici — Istituto Scientifico delle                         Tabacalera and No 929/1998 of 14 May 1998 concerning
Venezie SpA against Duphar International Research BV,                             Endesa), in so far as they implement a system of prior
and Consorzio Produttori Principi Attivi Generici —                               administrative authorisation
                           CPA, intervener
                                                                                —     which is not justified by overriding public interest
                           (Case C-454/00)                                              requirements,
                                                                                —     without laying down objective criteria which are
                            (2001/C 61/06)                                              consistent and have been made public, and
                                                                                —     without complying with the principle of pro-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                  portionality,
European Communities by order of the Corte d’Appello di
Milano (Court of Appeal, Milan) of 25 October 2000, which
was received at the Court Registry on 13 December 2000, for                       are incompatible with Article 43 EC (ex Article 52) and
a preliminary ruling in the case of VIS Farmaceutici — Istituto                   Article 56 EC (ex Article 73b).
Scientifico delle Venezie SpA, having its registered office in
Padua, Italy, against Duphar International Research BV, having              2.    Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
its registered office in the Netherlands, and Consorzio Produt-
tori Principi Attivi Generici — CPA, intervener, on the
following question:
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Must Article 4 of Regulation No 1768/92 (1) be interpreted as               The abovementioned provisions of Law 5/1995 and its
meaning that the scope of protection of the supplementary                   implementing decrees enable the Spanish authorities to subject
certificate extends only to manufacture of the raw material                 to prior administrative authorisation certain decisions (liqui-
from which is prepared the product which constitutes the                    dation, hiving off, merger, change of the company’s object,
medicinal product covered by the marketing authorisation?                   sale of assets and sale of more than 10 % of the shares) (Article
                                                                            3) taken by certain categories of companies in which the
                                                                            State’s shareholding is in excess of 25 % of the share capital
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/of 18 June 1992 concerning             and thereby results in it effectively controlling the company
    the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for med-         (Article 1), provided that such decisions lead either to the
    icinal products (OJ L 182, 2.7.1992, p. 1).                             State’s shareholding being reduced by at least 10 % of the
                                                                            capital so that its holding is less than 50 %, or to its
                                                                            shareholding being reduced by at least 15 % of the capital by
                                                                            any means (Article 2). Those facts have not at any time been
                                                                            disputed by the Spanish Government.
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.2.2001
The Commission submits that:                                              Question 2
—     the possibility of making certain operations subject to
      prior administrative authorisation, in the circumstances            1.    The Immigration Adjudicator having found that the
      described in the articles cited, constitutes a restriction                Appellant, and the spouse of a person present and settled
      on the free movement of capital and the freedom of                        in the United Kingdom were (or would be) afforded
      establishment, which are provided for in Article 56 EC                    different treatment in that
      (ex Article 73b) and Article 43 EC (ex Article 52);
—     the system of administrative authorisation laid down by                   a)    the Appellant, having entered the United Kingdom
      Law 5/1995 can in no way be justified by overriding                             as the spouse of an EU citizen exercising free
      reasons of public interest and clearly involves the exercise                    movement rights, was required to have been in the
      of discretion. That discretionary power is a key factor                         United Kingdom for four years before he could
      conducive to a negative assessment as regards the require-                      apply for indefinite leave to remain, whereas
      ment of proportionality and to the conclusion that what
      is involved is a system allowing indirect discrimination.
                                                                                b)    the spouse of a person who was present and settled
                                                                                in the United Kingdom (whether a British national
(1) Law 5/1995 of 23 March 1995 on the rules applying to the sale                     or as a person who had been granted indefinite leave
    of public shareholdings in certain companies (Boletı́n Oficial del                to remain) would qualify after one year for indefinite
    Estado No 72 of 25 March 1995).
                                                                                leave to remain.
                                                                          2.    No evidence (or argument) concerning justification of the
                                                                                differential treatment between the applicant and such a
                                                                                spouse of a person present and settled having been
                                                                                presented to the referring court either at the hearing
                                                                                leading up to the Order for Reference of 25 September
                                                                                1998, in the written or oral observations made by the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration                           Respondent before the European Court of Justice or the
Appellate Authority (United Kingdom), by order of that                          hearing leading up to the present Order for Reference,
court of 19 December 2000, in the case of Arben Kaba                            despite the request by the Adjudicator for full argument,
    against Secretary of State for the Home Department                          the Immigration Adjudicator asks
                         (Case C-466/00)
                                                                                1.    Whatever the answer to the first question set out
                          (2001/C 61/08)                                              above, is the Court’s judgment of 11 April 2000 in
                                                                                this case (Case-356/98) to be interpreted as stating
                                                                                that, in these circumstances, there was discrimi-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                nation contrary to Article 39 EC and/or Article 7(2)
European Communities by an order of the Immigration                                   of Regulations 1612/68 (2)?
Appellate Authority (United Kingdom) of 19 December 2000,
which was received at the Court Registry on 27 December
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Arben Kaba                        2.    After re-assessment of the facts, is there discrimi-
against Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the                            nation contrary to Article 39 EC and/or Article 7(2)
following questions:                                                                  of Regulations 1612/68?
Question 1
                                                                          (1) Judgment of the Court of 11 April 2000 in Case C-356/98, Arben
1.    What mechanisms are there for the referring court or the                Kaba against Secretary of State for the Home Department (ECR
      parties to the proceedings (before the referring court and              p. I-2623).
      the ECJ) to ensure that the totality of the proceedings             (2) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
      comply with the obligations under Article 6 ECHR and                    on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ
      therefore to ensure that no liability for breach of Article             L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2 [SE SER1 68(H) p. 475]).
      6 ECHR arises either under the domestic human rights
      statute or before the Court of Human Rights? and
2.    Was the procedure followed in this case in compliance
      with the requirements of Article 6 ECHR and, if not, how
      does this affect the validity of the first judgment (1)?


title: Case F-50/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 — Bartha v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Open competition — Failure to include the applicant on the reserve list — Balanced representation of women and men on competition selection boards)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/58

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 23 November 2010 — Bartha v Commission
   (Case F-50/08) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Open competition - Failure to include the applicant on the reserve list - Balanced representation of women and men on competition selection boards)
   2011/C 30/109
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Gábor Bartha (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P. Homoki, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission (represented by: J. Currall, V. Bottka and A. Sipos, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of EPSO’s decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/56/06.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision 23 January 2008, by which the selection board of competition EPSO/AD/56/06 dismissed Mr Bartha’s application for reconsideration of the decision of that selection board rejecting the applicant's candidature;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the application;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to bear all of the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008, p. 73.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 June 2003 in Case C-149/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division): Commissioners of Customs & Excise v First Choice Holidays plc (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 26(2) — Special scheme for the taxation of travel agents and tour operators — Taxable amount — Margin — Total amount to be paid by the traveller)

text:
2.8.2003               EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 184/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 June 2003
                          of 19 June 2003
                                                                              in Case C-234/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-149/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                     the Finanzgericht Berlin): Arnoud Gerritse v Finanzamt
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):                                                 Neukölln-Nord (1)
Commissioners of Customs & Excise v First Choice Holi-
                              days plc (1)
                                                                              (Income tax — Non-residents — Article 59 of the EC Treaty
                                                                              (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) and Article 60 of the
                                                                              EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC) — Non-taxable threshold
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 26(2) — Special scheme for                                amount — Deduction of business expenses)
the taxation of travel agents and tour operators — Taxable
amount — Margin — Total amount to be paid by the
                               traveller)                                                                (2003/C 184/13)
                           (2003/C 184/12)                                                        (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-234/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                              EC by the Finanzgericht Berlin (Germany) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
In Case C-149/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    Arnoud Gerritse and Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord, on the inter-
EC by the Court of Appeal of England & Wales, Civil Division                  pretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
(United Kingdom) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                  ment, Article 43 EC), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
pending before that court between Commissioners of Customs                    M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C.W.
& Excise and First Choice Holidays plc, on the interpretation of              A. Timmermans, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Judges;
Article 26(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May                 P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States                    trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 June
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                     2003, in which it has ruled:
tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President
of the Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth                       1.    Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49
Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris, F. Macken                             EC) and Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC)
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate                              preclude a national provision such as that at issue in the main
General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given                    proceedings which, as a general rule, takes into account gross
a judgment on 19 June 2003, in which it has ruled:                                  income when taxing non-residents, without deducting business
                                                                                expenses, whereas residents are taxed on their net income, after
                                                                                deduction of those expenses.
Article 26(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating           2.    However, those articles of the Treaty do not preclude that same
to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                       provision in so far as, as a general rule, it subjects the income
basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that the ‘total                  of non-residents to a definitive tax at the uniform rate of
amount to be paid by the traveller’ within the meaning of that                      25 %, deducted at source, whilst the income of residents is
provision includes the additional amount that a travel agent, acting                taxed according to a progressive table including a tax-free
as intermediary on behalf of a tour operator, must, in circumstances                allowance, provided that the rate of 25 % is not higher than
such as those described in the order for reference, pay to the tour                 that which would actually be applied to the person concerned,
operator on top of the price paid by the traveller and which corresponds            in accordance with the progressive table, in respect of net
in amount to the discount given by the travel agent to the traveller on             income increased by an amount corresponding to the tax-free
the price of the holiday stated in the tour operator's brochure.                    allowance.
(1) OJ C 173 of 16.6.2001.                                                    (1) OJ C 245 of 1.9.2001.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 1999 in Case T-157/98: Graça Oliveira v European Parliament (Officials - Promotion - Examination of comparative merits)

text:
30.10.1999            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 314/9
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant in the context of
                                                                          the implementation of the ‘Baardaheere Agricultural Exper-
                     of 21 September 1999                                 imental Station’ project, as a result of events occurring in the
                                                                          Democratic Republic of Somalia — the Court of First Instance
                                                                          (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and
in Case T-157/98: Graça Oliveira v European Parliament (1)                J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
                                                                          order on 4 August 1999, the operative part of which is as
(Officials — Promotion — Examination of comparative                       follows:
                               merits)
                                                                          1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
                         (1999/C 314/20)
                                                                          2. The applicant is to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the
                                                                               Commission.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
In Case T-157/98: Graça Oliveira, an official of the European
Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël
Louis and Françoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v European Parliament
(Agent: Joao Sant’Anna) — application for annulment of the
Parliament’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade
B 4 in the course of the 1997 promotions procedure — the                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jae-                                        INSTANCE
ger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; B. Pastor,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 21 September 1999, in which it:                                                                 of 20 July 1999
1. Dismisses the action;                                                  in Case T-59/99 R: Ventouris Group Enterprises SA v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                          (Competition — Payment of the fine — Bank guarantee —
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                Procedure for interim measures — Suspension of enforce-
                                                                                ment)
                                                                                (1999/C 314/22)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-59/99 R: Ventouris Group Enterprises SA, established
                                                                          in Panama, represented by Maria Proestou and Maria Velma-
                        of 4 August 1999                                  chou, of the Athens Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8-10 Rue
in Case T-106/98: Fratelli Murri SpA v Commission of the                  Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European Communities
                  European Communities (1)                                (Agents: Dimitris Triantafyllou and Richard Lyal) — appli-
                                                                          cation, first, for suspension of enforcement of Commission
(Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Limi-                   Decision 1999/271/EC of 9 December 1998 relating to a
                           tation period)                                 proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/34.466
                                                                          — Greek Ferries) (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 24), in that it imposes on
                                                                          the applicant a fine of ECU 1.01 million for breach of
                         (1999/C 314/21)                                  Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC), and, second,
                                                                          for the unconditional release of the applicant from its obli-
                                                                          gation to furnish a bank guarantee as a condition of the
                  (Language of the case: German)                          non-immediate recovery of the amount of the fine imposed by
                                                                          the decision — the President of the Court of First Instance
In Case T-106/98: Fratelli Murri SpA, established in Rome,                made an order on 20 July 1999, the operative part of which is
represented by Karl-Gustav von Luschka, Rechtsanwalt, Dres-               as follows:
den, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Claude Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v                   1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Etienne
Lasnet and Barbara Brandtner) — application for damages                   2. The costs are reserved.
pursuant to Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC)
and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty
(now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC) on account of


title: Case C-388/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora — Special Protection Area Valloni e steppe pedegarganiche )

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/8

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-388/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - Special Protection Area ‘Valloni e steppe pedegarganiche’)
   (2007/C 269/16)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Aresu and D. Recchiqa, Agents,)

      Defendant:. (represented by: I. Braguglia, Agent, and G. Fiengo, Lawyer)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Article 4(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) and of Article 6(2), (3) and (4) and Article 7 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Obligation to take appropriate steps to avoid deterioration of natural habitats and species habitats within special areas of conservation — Industrial developments affecting the Gargano National Park
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take appropriate steps to avoid, in the special protection area ‘Valloni e steppe pedegarganiche’, the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species for which that area was established, the Italian Republic failed, in respect of the period before 28 December 1998, to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(4) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds and, in respect of the period after that date, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(2) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: Case C-272/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Toscana (Italy) lodged on 21 May 2013 — Equoland Soc. coop. arl v Agenzia delle Dogane

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Toscana (Italy) lodged on 21 May 2013 — Equoland Soc. coop. arl v Agenzia delle Dogane
   (Case C-272/13)
   2013/C 207/53
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Toscana

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Equoland Soc. coop. arl

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Dogane — Ufficio delle Dogane di Livorno

      Questions referred

               1.

               In order to benefit, under Article 16 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 and Articles 154 and 157 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, (2) from the exemption from the payment of the VAT on importation resulting from the placement of the imported goods under warehousing arrangements other than customs warehousing, that is to say under VAT warehousing arrangements, is it sufficient that such placement occur only on paper and not physically?

               2.

               Do the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC and Council Directive 2006/112/EC preclude a practice whereby a Member State collects VAT on importation despite the fact that that VAT — by error or irregularity — has been settled already under the reverse charge mechanism through self-invoicing and simultaneous entry in the sales and purchases register?

               3.

               Is the principle of VAT neutrality breached when the Member State seeks to collect VAT which has already been settled under the reverse charge mechanism through self-invoicing and simultaneous entry in the sales and purchases register?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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).

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


C 314/6               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  30.10.1999
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       Removal from the register of Case C-259/98 (1)
the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 314/13)
1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
    administrative measures necessary in order to comply with         By order of 29 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
    Council Directive 94/67/EC of 16 December 1994 on the             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
    incineration of hazardous waste (1), or in any event to           the register of Case C-259/98: Commission of the European
    communicate the same to the Commission, the Kingdom               Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
    of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
    directive;
                                                                      (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Article 249 EC (formerly Article 189 of the EC Treaty),
according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the result            Removal from the register of Case C-64/99 (1)
to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
addressed, requires Member States to observe the time-limits                                  (1999/C 314/14)
laid down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
in the present case expired on 31 December 1996 without the           By order of 1 July 1999 the President of the Court of Justice of
Kingdom of Belgium having brought into force the necessary            the European Communities has ordered the removal from the
provisions in order to comply with the directive referred to in       register of Case C-64/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
the Commission’s application.                                         from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s
                                                                      Bench Division (Commercial Court): Pace Airline Services Ltd
(1) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 34.                                    v Aerotrans Luftfahrtagentur GmbH.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-182/96 (1)
                        (1999/C 314/12)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-406/95 (1)
By order of 22 June 1999 the President of the Court of Justice                                (1999/C 314/15)
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-182/96: Federal Republic of Germany v          By order of 8 July 1999 the President of the Sixth Chamber of
Commission of the European Communities.                               the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered
                                                                      the removal from the register of Case C-406/95: Italian
(1) OJ C 210 of 20.7.1996.                                            Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 46 of 17.2.1996.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 March 1997 in Case T-179/96 R: J. Antonissen v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Milk quotas - Action based on non-contractual liability of the Community - Interim measures - Provisional payment of part of the compensation sought - Conditions - Not fulfilled)

text:
No C 181 / 14           EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  14 . 6 . 97
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  pay provisionally the sum of Fl 258 565,38 , plus interest
                         of 16 April 1997                                   at 5 % from 1 September 1996, together with Fl 20 000
in Case T-80/96 : Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus v.
                                                                            per year for the period between the date when the
                                                                            application for interim measures was lodged until the date
               Council of the European Union (')                            of the judgment of the Court of First Instance on the
(Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to tests                      substance, the President of the Court gave an order on
              — Professional experience required)                           21 March 1997 the operative part of which is as follows:
                            ( 97/C 181 /26 )
                                                                            1 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-80/96 : Ana Maria Fernandes Leite Mateus,
residing at Zaventem ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noel
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange,
v. Council of the European Union (Agents : Diego Canga
Fano and Therese Blanchet ) — application for annulment                                    ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
of the decision of 3 October 1995 of the selection board                              OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
in open competition Conseil/C/360 not to admit the                                                of 21 March 1997
applicant to the tests in that competition — the Court of
                                                                            in Case T-41 /97 R: Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Council of
First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of: A. Saggio,
President, and V. Tiili and R. M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J.                                        the European Union
Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                     (Association of the overseas countries and territories —
given a judgment on 16 April 1997, in which it:                             Safeguard measure — Application for interim measures —
                                                                            Application for suspension of operation — Urgency —
 1 . annuls the decision of 3 October 1995 of the selection                                              None)
      board in competition Conseil/C/360 not to admit                                               ( 97/C 181 /28 )
     Ms    Fernandes     Leite Mateus         to  the   tests in  that
      competition;                                                                          (Language of the case: Dutch)
2 . orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                            In Case T-41 /97 R: Antillean Rice Mills NV, established
      the costs of the applicant.
                                                                            in Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles, represented by W.
 (>) OJ No C 233 , 10 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                            Knibbeler, of the Amsterdam Bar, and K. J. Defares, of the
                                                                            Rotterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                            at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, supported
                                                                            by Kingdom of the Netherlands ( Agent: M. Fierstra ),
                                                                            against Council of the European Union (Agents : R.
                                                                            Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin ), supported by Italian
                                                                            Republic ( Agent: F. Quadri ) and Commission of the
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                      European Communities ( Agent: T. van Rijn ) —
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   application for suspension of the operation of Council
                         of 21 March 1997                                   Regulation ( EC ) No 304/97 of 17 February 1997
                                                                            introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of
in Case T- 179/96 R: J. Antonissen v. Council of the
                                                                            rice originating in the overseas countries and territories
 European Union and Commission of the European                              ( OJ No L 51 , 1997, p. 1 ) and, in the alternative, for
                              Communities
                                                                            adoption of any necessary or appropriate measure — the
 (Milk quotas — Action based on non-contractual liability                   President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
 of the Community — Interim measures — Provisional                          21 March 1997, the operative part of which is as follows :
payment of part of the compensation sought —
                   Conditions — Not fulfilled)                               1 . The Kingdom of the Netherlands is granted leave to
                             ( 97/C 181 /27 )                                    intervene in the interlocutory proceedings in support
                                                                                of the form of order sought by the applicant.
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                            2 . The Italian Republic and the Commission are granted
 In Case T-179/96 R: J. Antonissen, residing at Giethem                          leave to intervene in the interlocutory proceedings in
 ( Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of                     support of the form of order sought by the defendant.
 the Amsterdam Bar, and T. P. J. von Oers, of the Bar at
 The Hague, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
 the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue Guillaume v.                          3 . The application for interim measures is dismissed.
 Council of the European Union ( Agents : G. Houttuin, A.
 M. Colaert and J. P. Hix ) and Commission of the                           4.   Costs are reserved.
 European Communities ( Agent: T. van Rijn ) —
 application for an order that the European Community


title: Case T-236/07: Action brought on 4 July 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/41

         Action brought on 4 July 2007 — Federal Republic of Germany v Commission
   (Case T-236/07)
   (2007/C 211/77)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and J. Müller)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare void Commission Decision K(2007) 1901 final of 27 April 2007 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year, to the extent that it charges to the applicant the amount of EUR 1 750 616,27;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests Commission Decision K(2007) 1901 final of the Commission of 27 April 2007 on the clearance of the accounts of the paying agencies of Member States concerning expenditure financed by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee Section, for the 2006 financial year, and applies for annulment of that decision, to the extent that it charges to the applicant half of certain non-recoverable export refunds.
   In support of its claim, the applicant maintains, first, that the defendant was wrong to apply the fixed 50 % charge laid down in Article 32(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/95 (1). According to the applicant that provision is not applicable to cases which were notified in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 595/91 (2).
   Secondly, the applicant argues that in some of the cases at issue the defendant has infringed the principles of proper administration since it did not comply with the obligation to which it was bound by the unilateral statement for the minutes of 4 May 1995.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information system in this field and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 283/72 (OJ 1991 L 67, p. 11).


title: Case C-407/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 July 2016 — SIA ‘Aqua Pro’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/36

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākā tiesa (Latvia) lodged on 20 July 2016 — SIA ‘Aqua Pro’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-407/16)
   (2016/C 343/49)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākā tiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA ‘Aqua Pro’

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Questions referred

               1.

                           a)

                           Is Article 220(1) and (2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the amount of duty payable recognised by the tax authority is to be regarded as entered in the accounts by the tax authority when it decides to enter that amount in the accounts or when it establishes the obligation to pay the duty, regardless of whether that decision has been subject to an administrative appeal and challenged in court proceedings?

                           b)

                           Are Articles 236 and 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that when the tax authority has adopted the decision to enter the corresponding amount of duty in the accounts and has established the debtor’s obligation to pay it (the decision adopted by the Latvian Tax Authority in the present case), but that debtor has brought an administrative appeal against that decision and challenged it in court proceedings, it is necessary to apply at the same time for remission or repayment of that duty, in accordance with Articles 236 or 239 of the regulation (or, in that case, is the application challenging the decision of the aforementioned tax authority to be regarded also as an application for remission or repayment of the tax debt)? If so, what is the difference in substance between the review of the lawfulness of the administrative decision to enter the duty in the accounts and the obligation to pay the duty, on the one hand, and the matter which must be resolved in accordance with Article 236, on the other?

                           c)

                           Is the first subparagraph of Article 236(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that an appeal has been brought against the tax authority’s decision establishing the obligation to pay the duty, and the duration of the legal proceedings, extend the time limit for submitting the application for remission or repayment of the duty (or justify failure to comply with it)?

                           d)

                           If the question of whether, in this case, the duty should be entered in the accounts or remitted is to be decided regardless of the decision of the European Commission adopted in relation to another Member State (in this case, Finland), should the customs authority or the court, having regard to Article 869(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (2) of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code and also to the amount of the possible duty in the case under consideration, refer the question of non-entry or remission of the duty to the European Commission?

               2.

                           a)

                           When Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code is applied, should a subsequent check be made on the circumstances relating to the conduct of the authorities and the exporter of the third country (in the present case, Cambodia), which were investigated in connection with the OLAF mission? Or should it be considered that the general description of the circumstances contained in the OLAF report on the aforementioned conduct constitutes evidence?

                           b)

                           Is the information obtained in the subsequent check, even if it refers to the case of a specific Member State, crucial to the OLAF report?

                           c)

                           Is Article 875 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that the European Commission’s decision, adopted in accordance with the aforementioned OLAF report in respect of another Member State (in that case, Finland), is binding on the Member State?

                           d)

                           Should the subsequent check be carried out and should the information obtained thereby be used if the European Commission, on the basis of the OLAF report, has adopted a decision not to enter the duty in the accounts in relation to another Member State and has applied Article 875 of the regulation implementing the Customs Code?

               3.

               When the existence of reasonable grounds and good faith in the conduct of the taxable person is evaluated for the purposes of applying Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, may it be relevant in the specific circumstances that the merchandise import transaction is based on a distribution agreement?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1).


title: Case C-560/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2013 — Finanzamt Ulm v Ingeborg Wagner-Raith as successor in title to Mrs Maria Schweier

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 30 October 2013 — Finanzamt Ulm v Ingeborg Wagner-Raith as successor in title to Mrs Maria Schweier
   (Case C-560/13)
   2014/C 24/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and respondent on a point of law: Ingeborg Wagner-Raith as successor in title to Mrs Maria Schweier

      Defendant and appellant on a point of law: Finanzamt Ulm

      Other party: Bundesministerium der Finanzen (Federal Ministry of Finance)

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the case of holdings in third-country funds, does the free movement of capital provided for in Article 73b TEC (since 1 May 1999, Article 56 EC) (1) not preclude national legislation (in this instance Paragraph 18(3) of the AuslInvestmG (Law on Foreign Investments)) which provides that, in certain circumstances, national investors in foreign investment funds are deemed to have received, in addition to distributions, notional earnings in the amount of 90 % of the difference between the first and the last redemption price of the year, but of at least 10 % of the final redemption price (or of the stock exchange or market value), because that legislation, which has remained essentially unchanged since 31 December 1993, is concerned with the provision of financial services within the meaning of the rule on the protection of established rights contained in Article 73c(1) TEC (since 1 May 1999, Article 57(1) EC) (2)?
               If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:

               2.

               Does the holding in such an investment fund established in a third country always constitute a direct investment within the meaning of Article 73c(1) TEC (since 1 May 1999, Article 57(1) EC) or is the answer to this question dependent on whether, under the national law of the State in which the investment fund is established or on other grounds, the holding allows the investor to be actually involved in the management or control of the investment fund?

      (1)  Article 63 TFEU.

      (2)  Article 64 TFEU.


title: Case T-10/01: Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Lichtwer Pharma AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
2.6.2001                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 161/19
application for suspension of operation of Commission Regu-                 Proprietor of an oppos-        Orsem Sarl, Neuilly sur Seine,
lation No 2081/2000 of 29 September 2000 introducing                        ing mark or of an oppos-       France
safeguard measures for imports from the overseas countries                  ing sign:
and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-
lation of origin (OJ 2000 L 246 of 30.9.2000, p. 64), or for                Opposing mark or sign:         The Danish mark PREDONIUM,
any other interim measure to protect the interests of the                                                  the Greek mark PREDONIUM, the
applicant — the President of the Court of First Instance, made                                             Swedish mark PREDONIUM and
an order on 1 February 2001, the operative part of which is as                                             the United Kingdom mark PRE-
follows:                                                                                DONIUM for goods in Class 5
1.    The application for interim relief is dismissed;                      Decision of the Oppo-          opposition upheld and appli-
                                                                            sition Division:               cation rejected
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       rejection of the applicant’s appeal
                                                                            Appeal:
                                                                            Grounds of claim:              infringement of Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94 on the Community
                                                                                trade mark (Article 8(1)(b)) — no
                                                                                likelihood of confusion
Action brought on 22 January 2001 by Lichtwer Phar-
ma AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                           (Case T-10/01)
                          (2001/C 161/42)
(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with                  Action brought on 1 March 2001 by P&O European
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the            Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited against the Commission of
                   application is drafted: German)                                             the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                        (Case T-49/01)
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
22 January 2001 by Lichtwer Pharma AG, Berlin (Germany),                                             (2001/C 161/43)
represented by Robert Kunz-Hallstein, Rechtsanwalt. The other
party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was
Orsem Sarl., Neuilly sur Seine (France).
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     annul the decision adopted on 8 November 2000 by the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation                European Communities on 1 March 2001 by P&O European
      in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in                   Ferries (Portsmouth) Limited, represented by Mark Clough QC
      appeal No R 586/1999-2;                                               and Julian Ellison, of Ashurst Morris Crisp.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            —     declare, pursuant to Article 232 (ex 175) of the EC Treaty
                                                                                that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations under
Applicant for the Com-          Lichtwer Pharma AG                                the Treaty by failing to define its position on the
munity mark:                                                                      applicant’s complaint dated 29 February 2000 against
                                                                                Brittany Ferries, and/or at least that part of the complaint
Trade mark applied for:         the oral mark ‘SEDONIUM’ —                        dealing with the period up to 1995 outside the scope of
                                application No 312 447 for goods                  the Case C-31/98 procedure, and in particular by failing
                                in Class 5 (including medicinal                   to initiate the procedure provided for under Article 88(2)
                                products)                                         (ex 93(2)) of the EC Treaty;


title: Case C-476/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Citroën Commerce GmbH v Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 98/6/EC and 2005/29/EC — Consumer protection — Advertisement containing an indication of price — Concepts of ‘offer’ and ‘price inclusive of taxes’ — Obligation to include in the price of a motor vehicle the additional costs necessarily incurred in connection with the transfer of the vehicle)

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Citroën Commerce GmbH v Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW)
   (Case C-476/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 98/6/EC and 2005/29/EC - Consumer protection - Advertisement containing an indication of price - Concepts of ‘offer’ and ‘price inclusive of taxes’ - Obligation to include in the price of a motor vehicle the additional costs necessarily incurred in connection with the transfer of the vehicle))
   (2016/C 335/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Citroën Commerce GmbH

      Defendant: Zentralvereinigung des Kraftfahrzeuggewerbes zur Aufrechterhaltung lauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. (ZLW)

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 3 of Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 on consumer protection in the indication of the prices of products offered to consumers, read in conjunction with Article 1 and Article 2(a) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that costs in connection with the transfer of a motor vehicle from the manufacturer to the dealer, which are payable by the consumer, must be included in the selling price of that vehicle indicated in an advertisement made by the trader when, having regard to all the features of that advertisement, in the eyes of the consumer it sets out an offer concerning that vehicle. It is for the referring court to determine whether all those conditions are satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 462, 22.12.2014.


title: Case T-720/13: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — GAT Microencapsulation v OHIM — BASF (KARIS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark KARIS — Earlier Community marks and earlier international word mark CARYX — Earlier national marks and earlier Benelux word mark AKRIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 389/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — GAT Microencapsulation v OHIM — BASF (KARIS)
   (Case T-720/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark KARIS - Earlier Community marks and earlier international word mark CARYX - Earlier national marks and earlier Benelux word mark AKRIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 389/45)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: GAT Microencapsulation GmbH (formerly GAT Microencapsulation AG) (Ebenfurth, Austria) (represented by: S. Soler Lerma and C. March Cabrelles, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. Harrington, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BASF SE (Ludwigshafen, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2013 (Case R 1862/2012-5) relating to opposition proceedings between BASF SE and GAT Microencapsulation GmbH (formerly GAT Microencapsulation AG).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Gat Microencapsulation GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case T-599/11: Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Eni v OHIM — EMI (IP) (ENI)

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/29

         Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Eni v OHIM — EMI (IP) (ENI)
   (Case T-599/11)
   2012/C 32/61
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eni SpA (Roma, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EMI (IP) Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 September 2011 in case R 2439/2010-1; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of all instances of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENI’, for goods and services in classes 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 14, 16-19, 22, 25 and 35 to 45 — Community trade mark application No 6488076

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4197315 of the word mark ‘EMI’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 6167357 of the figurative mark ‘EMI’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: The applicant challenges the mentioned decision of the First Board of Appeal on the following three grounds: (i) erroneous and non-motivated finding of similarity of goods and services, based on the misunderstanding and misapplication of previous case-law on the point; (ii) erroneous interpretation and application of the Praktiker case, denoting a misunderstanding of its anti-monopolistic inspiring principles and in particular of the ratio that inspired the introduction of registrability of retail services; and (iii) erroneous finding of similarity of signs, and erroneous finding of likelihood of confusion.


title: References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Catalunya by orders of that court of 3 and 9 December 1996 in the cases of (i) Fuerzas Eléctricas de Catalunya SA (Fecsa) and (ii) Autopistas Concesionaria Española SA against Tribunal Económico-Administrativo Regional de Catalunya and Departament d'Economia i Finances de la Generalitat de Catalunya (Cases C-31/97 and C-32/97)

text:
No C 94/6            1 EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 3 . 97
regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                    national court must not take account of those internal
comply fully with Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July                provisions, even when classifying the legal relationship on
1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to                      the basis of which a national of a Member State calls on
mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of                 the finance administration to refund sums that were paid
shares concerning companies of different Member                          in contravention of the said Article 10 of Directive 69/
States ('), the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its               335/EEC .
obligations under the EC Treaty.
                                                                         (') OJ No L 249 , 3 . 10 . 1969 , p . 25 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Under Article 12 ( 1 ) of the Directive, the Member States
were to comply with the provisions of the Directive not
later than 1 January 1992 and to inform the Commission
thereof. The Greek authorities acknowledge that they have                References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
not yet adopted the necessary provisions by reason of                    Superior de Justicia de Catalunya by orders of that court
internal difficulties in the Greek legal system and the                  of 3 and 9 December 1996 in the cases of ( i ) Fuerzas
failure so far to adopt, at Community level, the Tenth                   Eléctricas de Catalunya SA (Fecsa) and (ii ) Autopistas
Directive on cross-border company mergers and the                        Concesionaria Española SA against Tribunal Económico
Regulation on the statute for a European company.                        Administrativo Regional de Catalunya and Departament
                                                                             d'Economia i Finances de la Generalitat de Catalunya
The Commission observes that those reasons cannot                                       ( Cases C-31/97 and C-32/97)
exempt the Hellenic Republic from its obligation to                                                   ( 97/C 94/ 13 )
implement the Directive .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') OJNoL225 , 20 . 8 . 1990 , p . 1 .
                                                                         European Communities by orders of the Tribunal Superior
                                                                         de Justicia de Catalunya ( High Court of Justice,
                                                                         Catalunya ) of 3 and 9 December 1996 , which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 23 January 1997, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the cases of ( i ) ( Case C-31 /97)
                                                                         Fuerzas Eléctricas de Catalunya SA ( Fecsa ) and ( ii ) ( Case
References for preliminary rulings by the Pretura di Roma                C-32/97) Autopistas Concesionaria Española SA against
by orders of that court of 17 December 1996 in the cases                 Tribunal Economico-Administrativo Regional de Catalun
of Ministero delle Finanze v. 1 . IN.CO.GE.'90 srl; 2 . Idel
                                                                         ya and Departament d'Economia i Finances de la Genera
gard srl; 3 . IRIS '90 srl; 4. Camed srl; 5 . PPA — Pomezia              litat de Catalunya on the following question:
Progetti Appalti srl; 6. Edilcam srl; 7. Impresa A. Cecchini
EC srl; 8 . EMO srl; 9. Emoda srl; 10. Sappesi srl; 11 .                 Having regard to Articles 11 ( b ) and 12 of Council
ING. Luigi Martini srl; 12 . Giacomo srl and 13 . Mafar srl              Directive 69/335/EEC ( 1 ) of 17 July 1969, is the purported
                  ( Cases C- 10/97 to C-22/97)                           levying by the Spanish Administration of the duty on
                          ( 97/C 94/12 )                                 transfers of assets and documented legal transactions on
                                                                         records of redemption ( repayment of loans ) in conformity
                                                                         with Community law, or on the contrary does it conflict
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   with Community law with the result that it must be
European Communities by orders of the Pretura di Roma                    disallowed as being incompatible therewith ?
( Magistrate's Court, Rome ) of 17 December 1996 , which
were received at the Court Registry on 16 January 1997,                  (') OJ No L 249, 3 . 10 . 1969 , p. 25 .
for preliminary rulings in the cases of Ministero delle Fi
nanze v. 1 . IN. CO . GE. ' 90 srl ; 2 . Idelgard srl ; 3 . IRIS ' 90
srl; 4 . Camed srl ; 5 . PPA — Pomezia Progetti Appalti srl;
6 . Edilcam srl ; 7. Impresa A. Cecchini EC srl; 8 . EMO srl ;
9 . Emoda srl; 10 . Sappesi srl; 11 . ING. Luigi Martini srl ;
12 . Giacomo srl and 13 . Mafar srl, on the following                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank
question :                                                               van Koophandel by judgment of that court of 10 January
                                                                         1997 in the case of Colim NV against Bigg's Continent
Whether the imcompatibility with Article 10 of Council                                                  Noord NV
Directive 69/335/EEC (') of 17 July 1969 , as interpreted                                           ( Case C-33/97)
by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 20 April 1993
( in Joined Cases C-71/91 and C-178/91 Ponenti Carni and                                              ( 97/C 94/14 )
Cispadana Costruzione v. Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato [ 1993 ] ECR I, p. 1915 ), of Article 3 ( XVIII )            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and (XIX ) of Decree Law No 853 of 19 December 1984,                     European Communities by a judgment of- the Rechtbank
converted into Law No 17 of 17 February 1985 , means,                    van Koophandel ( Commercial Court ) of 10 January 1997,
on the basis of the criteria for integration of national law             which was received at the Court Registry on 27 January
and Community law which that Court has laid down, that                    1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Colim NV
the said Article 3 ( XVIII ) and ( XIX ) must be set aside in            against Bigg's Continent Noord NV on the following
their entirety, and in particular whether it means that the              questions :


               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/43

         Removal from the Register of Case T-307/99 (1)

   (2004/C 228/100)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 11 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-307/99, Oliecentrum Strijbos B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.


title: Case C-86/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Granada (Spain) lodged on 18 February 2014  — Marta León Medialdea v Ayuntamiento de Huétor Vega

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Granada (Spain) lodged on 18 February 2014 — Marta León Medialdea v Ayuntamiento de Huétor Vega
   (Case C-86/14)
   2014/C 142/27
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de lo Social No 1 de Granada

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Marta León Medialdea

      Defendant: Ayuntamiento de Huétor Vega

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a worker employed under a non-permanent contract of indefinite duration, as envisaged by the legislation and the case-law, a fixed-term worker within the meaning of the definition set out in Directive 1999/70/EC? (1)

               2.

               Is it compatible with EU law for the national court to interpret and apply national law in such a way that, as regards fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector entered into in circumvention of the law which are transformed into non-permanent contracts of indefinite duration, the public authorities may fill or eliminate the posts held by persons employed under such contracts unilaterally, without paying any compensation to the worker, where the legislation does not lay down other measures to limit the misuse of temporary contracts?

               3.

               Would the same conduct by the public authority be compatible with EU law if, in filling or eliminating the post, the worker concerned was paid the compensation provided for in the event of termination of temporary contracts entered into lawfully?

               4.

               Would the same conduct by the public authority be compatible with EU law if, in order to fill or eliminate the post, it was required to have recourse to the procedures and grounds provided for in the event of dismissal for objective reasons and to pay the same compensation?

      (1)  Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43).


title: Case F-31/11: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 March 2012 — BI v Cedefop (Civil service — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Language of rejection of complaint)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/27

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 March 2012 — BI v Cedefop
   (Case F-31/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Language of rejection of complaint)
   2012/C 126/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BI (Evosmos, Greece) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop) (represented by: M. Fuchs, agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Director of Cedefop to terminate the employment of the applicant and for reparation of material and non-material loss sustained.

      Operative part of the order

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as manifestly inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders BI to pay all costs.

      (1)  OJ 25.6.2011 C 186, p. 33.


title: Case C-445/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice Unico del Tribunale di Beilla by order of 18 October 2001 in case of Roberto Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione Provinciale del Lavoro, Vercelli (Principal Labour Administration, Vercelli)

text:
6.4.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 84/37
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),            Giudice Unico del Tribunale di Beilla (Single-Judge Court of
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 November                 Beilla), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 Novem-
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stadt Villingen-          ber 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto
Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu on the following                    Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione Provinciale del lavoro
questions:                                                              (Vercelli) on the following question:
1.   With regard to the legal position on 16 May 1997, was
     prostitution engaged in on a self-employed basis by a              Are Article 9 bis (2) of Law No 608 of 28 November 1996, in
     national of Member State A in Member State B covered               so far as it provides that an employer is required to notify the
     by freedom of establishment (Article 52 of the EC Treaty)          Sezione Circoscrizionale per l’Impiego of the hiring of every
     and/or freedom to provide services (Article 59 of the              worker, and Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 469 of
     EC Treaty)? Is it in this regard relevant whether prosti-          23 December 1997, in so far as it refers to Article 9 bis of Law
     tution was at that time considered in Member State B to            608/1996 in cases where non-authorised parties have acted as
     be immoral and anti-social?                                        intermediaries, consistent with the principles of Community
                                                                        law laid down by Articles 48, 52 and 90 of the EC Treaty
2.   If the first question is answered in the negative:                 (now, after amendment, Articles 39, 43, and 86 EC).
     With regard to the legal position on 16 May 1997, did
     the national of Member State A derive a right to reside in
     Member State B directly from Article 8a of the EC Treaty?
3.   If the second question is answered in the negative:
     As the law stood on 16 May 1997, did that person have
     a right of residence under the conditions set out in               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
     Article 1 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC (1) of 28 June           für Zivilrechtssachen, Vienna, by order of that court of
     1990 on the right of residence, even though Member                 5 November 2001 in the case of DLD Trading Company
     State B had not yet at that date implemented that directive               Import-Export, spol.s.r.o. v Republic of Austria
     in its domestic law?
4.   If the third question is answered in the affirmative:                                       (Case C-447/01)
     Was that person required at the time of her entry to have
     sufficient resources and to demonstrate this to the                                          (2002/C 84/64)
     competent authority, or does it suffice if, during her
     period of residence in Member State B, she did not claim
     any social assistance?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht für
(1) OJ L 180, p. 26.
                                                                        Zivilrechtssachen (Regional Court for Civil Matters), Vienna,
                                                                        of 5 November 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                        on 20 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        OLD Trading Company Import-Export, spol.s.r.o. v Republic
                                                                        of Austria on the following questions:
                                                                        1.    Was a provision of directly applicable Community law or
                                                                              a directive infringed and, if so, which one, as a result of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice Unico                       the government action described in the facts, in particular
del Tribunale di Beilla by order of 18 October 2001 in                        the alteration as from 1 January 1998 of the travellers’
case of Roberto Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione                       duty-free amount to EUR 75 or EUR 100, according to
Provinciale del Lavoro, Vercelli (Principal Labour Admin-                     the case under Paragraph 97a of the customs
                        istration, Vercelli)                                  implementing law [ZollR-DG] in conjunction with Para-
                                                                              graph 19a of the corresponding implementing regulation
                                                                              [ZollR-DV] and the quantitative restriction in regard to
                         (Case C-445/01)
                                                                              the relief from turnover tax and excise duty on tobacco
                                                                              products.
                          (2002/C 84/63)
                                                                        2.    If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:
                                                                              Is the infringed provision of directly applicable Com-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        munity law or of that directive one which confers an
European Communities by order of 18 October 2001 of the                       individual right on the plaintiff in the main proceedings?


title: Case T-198/03: Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 213/38                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                              6.9.2003
included on the list of successful candidates because his mark             Pleas in law and main arguments
for the oral examination (18 out of 40) fell below the
minimum mark of 20.
The applicant relies on the following pleas in law:                        On 11 June 2002 the defendant adopted a decision to impose
                                                                           a fine on the applicant and seven other Austrian banks in the
                                                                           case COMP/36.571 (Austrian Banks). The applicant brought
—     Breach of the prohibition against discrimination on                  an action against that decision ( 1).
      grounds of nationality under Articles 12 EC and 39 EC
      and of the requirement that applicants in a competition
      be treated equally: by reason of his Austrian nationality,
      the applicant was not admitted to a seminar for preparing
      for the oral examination which was organised by the                  By the present action the applicant challenges the defendant’s
      German Department for Foreign Affairs and in which                   decision of 5 May 2003, in which the defendant gave notice
      Commission officials took part.                                      that its decision of 11 June 2002 would be published in the
                                                                           Official Journal of the European Communities and on the
—     Defective composition of the selection board, breach of              Internet. By the contested decision, the defendant rejected
      essential procedural requirements and infringement of                the applicant’s request as regards the defendant’s proposed
      Annex III to the Staff Regulations.                                  publication of the decision to impose a fine.
—     Manifest error of assessment and misuse of powers by
      the selection board.
                                                                           The applicant claims that publication of the decision to impose
—     Breach of essential procedural requirements through a                a fine in the form notified is inadmissible. It maintains that the
      failure to assess the applicant’s linguistic knowledge,              decision may not be published, since Article 21(1) of Regu-
      contrary to the notice of competition.                               lation No 17 does not allow decisions taken under Article 15
                                                                           of Regulation No 17 to be published.
( 1) Officially announced in OJ No C 110 A, 11.4.2001, p. 13.
                                                                           Moreover, the decision to impose a fine may not be disclosed
                                                                           in the non-confidential version used by the defendant, since it
                                                                           reproduces the decision to impose a fine word for word
                                                                           except for making the names of natural persons anonymous.
                                                                           Regulation No 17, however, allows the disclosure only of the
                                                                           substance of a decision which is to be made public.
Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Bank Austria Creditan-
stalt AG against the Commission of the European Com-
                              munities
                                                                           The applicant furthermore maintains that the passages of the
                          (Case T-198/03)                                  decision to impose a fine which relate to the year 1994 may
                                                                           not be published in any event, since those observations are not
                                                                           relevant to the operative part of the decision and the defendant
                          (2003/C 213/75)                                  was not competent to find that the applicant infringed
                                                                           Article 81 EC in the year 1994. Moreover, the publication of
                    (Language of the Case: German)                         the decision in the Official Journal of the European Community
                                                                           and on the Internet in a non-confidential version infringes
                                                                           Regulation No 45/2001 (2).
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           (1 ) Case T-260/02, Bank Austria Creditanstalt v Commission (OJ
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Bank Austria
                                                                                2002 C 274, p. 28).
Creditanstalt AG, Vienna (Austria), represented by C. Zschocke
                                                                           (2 ) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of
and J. Beninca, lawyers.                                                        the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals
                                                                                with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community
                                                                                institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).
—     annul the Commission’s decision 5 May 2003;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-471/01 P: Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on 19 september 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-120/00 between Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
16.3.2002             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 68/3
Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &                         established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on                       represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-119/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and                      The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                       —     annul the judgment
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                       —     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance
                       (Case C-470/01 P)                                     and on appeal.
                         (2002/C 68/05)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance              See case C-468/01 P.
of the European Communities in case T-119/00 between
Procter & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in               (1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 22.
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,
established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
                                                                       Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                            Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
—     annul the judgment                                               19 September 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court
                                                                       of First Instance of the European Communities in case
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance           T-121/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and
      and on appeal.                                                   Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                                Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case C-472/01 P)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2002/C 68/07)
See case C-468/01 P.
(1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 21.                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
                                                                       2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities in case T-121/00 between Procter
                                                                       & Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                       Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was
                                                                       brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Appeal brought on 6 December 2001 by Procter &                         ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,
Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on                       established in Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America),
19 september 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court                   represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and G. Kuipers, lawyers.
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-120/00 (1) between Procter & Gamble Company and                      The Appellant claims that the Court should:
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                 Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                             —     annul the judgment
                       (Case C-471/01 P)                               —     order the OHIM to pay the costs both at first instance
                                                                             and on appeal.
                         (2002/C 68/06)
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 September
2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of           See case C-468/01 P.
the European Communities in case T-120/00 between Procter
& Gamble Company and Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was                   (1) OJ C 192, 8.7.2000, p. 22.
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 6 December 2001 by Procter & Gamble Company,