title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2001 in Case T-243/99 Marie-Laurence Buisson v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Open competition — Refusal to admit to the written tests — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting a candidate — Time-limit — Legitimate expectation — Compensation)

text:
C 259/8                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        15.9.2001
V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,             regard — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
against Council of the European Union (Agents: F. Anton and               composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
M. Bauer) — application for annulment of the decisions of the             Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 June
Secretary General of the Council of 15 December 1998                      2001, in which it:
rejecting the applicant’s applications for the posts of Head of
the English Language Division of Language Service of the                  1.    Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for an order requiring the
‘Translation and Production of Documents’ Directorate of the                    Commission to adopt certain measures and the claim for other
‘Administration — Protocol’ Directorate-General and Language                    or further relief;
Adviser in that division and appointing B and K to those two
posts respectively — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                  2.    Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR
Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, R.M. Moura                        1 in compensation for the non-material damage;
Ramos and J.D. Cooke, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:                                    3.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
1.    annulled the decisions of the Council of 15 December 1998           4.    Orders the Commission to pay, in addition to its own costs,
      appointing K to the post of language adviser in the English               half of the applicant’s costs.
      Language Division and rejecting the applicant’s application for
      that post.                                                          (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.00.
2.    dismissed the application as inadmissible.
3.    ordered the Council to bear its own costs and to pay 50 % of
      those incurred by the applicant.
4.    ordered the applicant to bear 50 % of his own costs.                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 7 June 2001
(1) OJ No C 6 of 8.1.00.
                                                                          in Case T-330/99 Spedition Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Community Customs Code — Remission of import duties
                                                                          — Special situation — Fraud in connection with an external
                                                                                Community transit operation)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (2001/C 259/12)
                          of 20 June 2001
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
in Case T-243/99 Marie-Laurence Buisson v Commission
               of the European Communities (1)                            In Case T-330/99, Spedition Wilhelm Rotermund GmbH, a
                                                                          company in judicial liquidation, established in Flensburg
(Officials — Open competition — Refusal to admit to the                   (Germany), represented by A. Suhr, lawyer, against Com-
written tests — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting                   mission of the European Communities (Agents: J.-C. Schieferer
a candidate — Time-limit — Legitimate expectation —                       and M. Núñez-Müller) — application for annulment of the
                           Compensation)                                  Commission decision of 22 July 1999 (reference: REM 22/98)
                                                                          which stated that the remission of import duties sought was
                                                                          not justified — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                          (2001/C 259/11)                                 composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
                                                                          Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                          has given a judgment on 7 June 2001, in which it:
                   (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          1.    Annuls the Commission decision of 22 July 1999 (reference:
                                                                                REM 22/98) which found that the remission of import duties
In Case T-243/99 Marie-Laurence Buisson, residing in Ankara
                                                                                sought was not justified;
(Turkey), represented by I. Forrester QC, E. Wright, Barrister,
and F.M. Murray, Barrister, with an address for service in                2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay nine
Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communi-                         tenths of the costs incurred by the applicant, which shall bear
ties (Agent: J. Currall) — application for annulment of the                     one tenth of its own costs.
decision of 13 July 1999 rejecting the applicant’s request for
reconsideration of the decision of the selection board not to
admit her to the written tests forming part of the selection              (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.00.
procedure in Open Competition COM/A/10/98, and for
compensation for the non-material damage incurred in that


title: Case C-370/14 P: Appeal brought on 30 July 2014 by Argo Group International Holdings Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 May 2014 in Case T-247/12: Argo Group International Holdings Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/7

         Appeal brought on 30 July 2014 by Argo Group International Holdings Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 20 May 2014 in Case T-247/12: Argo Group International Holdings Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-370/14 P)
   (2015/C 127/10)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Argo Group International Holdings Ltd (represented by: F. Petillion, avocat, J. Janssen, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Arisa Assurances SA
   By order of 12 February 2015 the Court of Justice (Ninth Chamber) has dismissed the appeal and ordered Argo Group International Holdings Ltd to bear its own costs.


title: Case F-88/06: Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Pantalis v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/44

         Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Pantalis v Commission
   (Case F-88/06)
   (2006/C 281/80)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Ioannis Pantalis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

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

               —

               annul that part of the decision of the Appointing Authority of 18 April 2006 which concerns: (a) the Appointing Authority's implied refusal to adapt the applicant's salary in accordance with the Staff Regulations in respect of a dependent child for whom he has alternating custody, (b) the Appointing Authority's refusal to pay the child's travel expenses to the applicant's place of origin, in accordance with the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the retrospective payment of those sums with added interest;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official with alternating custody of a child whose mother is also an official of the European Communities, requested, on his return to Brussels after a period of secondment outside Europe, payment to him of the allowances and advantages relating to the child. The official dealing with the file called for the production of the original of a declaration of agreement between the former spouses on the readjustment of the applicant's rights in the present case. Since that declaration was only produced by email, the authorities did not grant the applicant's requests.
   In support of his action, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 67 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 7 and 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as interpreted by case-law. He submits, inter alia, that the authorities' discretion is not unlimited and they have a duty to comply with the principles of sound administration and proportionality. Also, the supporting documents required must be directly linked to the payment requested and they must be referred to by the applicable provisions, or they must be absolutely necessary in order to set the amount to be paid.


title: Case T-53/13: Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014  — Vans v OHIM (Representation of a wavy line) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community figurative mark representing a wavy line — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               22.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — Vans v OHIM (Representation of a wavy line)
   (Case T-53/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for the Community figurative mark representing a wavy line - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2014/C 462/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Cypress, California, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2012 (Case R 860/2012-5), concerning the application for registration as a Community trade mark of a figurative sign representing a wavy line.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vans, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 June 2001 in Case C-119/00: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement Directive 97/36/EC amending Directive 89/552/EEC — Coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities)

text:
11.8.2001                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 227/5
2.    The application by the competent institution of a Member State        1.    Declares that by not implementing within the prescribed period
      of Article 95a(4), (5) and (6) of Regulation No 1408/71 to                  the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to
      a request for review of a retirement pension, thus limiting the             comply with Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament
      retroactivity of the review to the detriment of the person                  and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council
      concerned, constitutes a serious breach of Community law if                 Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions
      those provisions are not applicable to the application in question          laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
      and if it follows from a judgment delivered by the Court of                 Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting
      Justice before the decision by the competent institution that the           activities, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
      institution wrongly applied and anti-overlapping rule of that               its obligations under that directive;
      Member State, and where it cannot be inferred from that
      judgment that the retroactive effect of such a review could be        2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
      limited.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
( 1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                                                of 3 July 2001
                           of 21 June 2001                                  in Case C-378/98: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
in Case C-119/00: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)
                                                                            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — State
                                                                            aid — Article 93(2), second subparagraph, of the EC Treaty
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                      (now Article 88(2), second subparagraph, EC) — Obligation
Failure to implement Directive 97/36/EC amending Directive                  to recover aid granted under the Maribel bis and Maribel ter
89/552/EEC — Coordination of certain provisions laid down                               schemes — Impossible to put into effect)
by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States
 concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities)
                                                                                (2001/C 227/08)
                           (2001/C 227/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                           in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            In Case C-378/98: Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-119/00: Commission of the European Communities                    (Agent: G. Rozet) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx,
(Agent: K. Banks) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                       assisted by G. van Gerven and K. Coppenholle) — application
P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing              for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the periods
to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions                prescribed for under the Maribel bis/ter scheme which was
necessary to comply with Directive 97/36/EC of the European                 declared unlawful and incompatible with the common market
Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending                      by Commission Decision 97/239/EC of 4 December 1996
Council Directive 89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain                 concerning aid granted by Belgium under the Maribel bis/ter
provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative                   scheme (OJ 1997 L 95, p. 25), notified to it on 20 December
action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television                1996, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
broadcasting activities (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60), and/or by                   under the fourth paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty
failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of                (now the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC) and Articles 2
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that                  and 3 of the said decision — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: A. La                  composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber,
Pergola, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Eward (Rapporteur)                J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric
and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;                   (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; D. Louter-
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 June 2001, in               man-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a
which it:                                                                   judgment on 3 July 2001, in which it:


title: Judgment of the Court of 7 November 2000 in Case C-312/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof): Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV v Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer GmbH & Co. KG (Protection of geographical indications and designations of origin — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Scope — Directive 79/112/EEC — National rules prohibiting the potentially misleading use of "simple" geographical indications of source)

text:
C 28/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         27.1.2001
P. Steinmetz, assisted by J. Welter) v European Parliament                 (Federal Court of Justice), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
(Agents: originally represented by C. Pennera, and A. Baas, and            the proceedings pending before that court between Schutzver-
subsequently by C. Pennera and J. Sant’Anna) and Council of                band gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV and Warsteiner
the European Union (Agents: M.C. Giorgi and F. Anton),                     Brauerei Haus Cramer GmbH & Co. KG — on the interpret-
supported by Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: M. López-Monı́s                    ation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
Gallego, Abogado del Estado) by Kingdom of the Netherlands                 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and
(Agent: M.A. Fierstra) by United Kingdom of Great Britain and              designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
Northern Ireland (Agents: J.E. Collins and D. Anderson, and by             (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́-
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiro                  guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and B. Mongin, — application for a annulment of Directive                  and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers, D.A.O. Edward,
98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                   J.-R Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of               and F. Macken, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than                   H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77,                a judgment on 7 November 2000, in which it has ruled:
p. 36) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P.              Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,                protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von                   agricultural products and foodstuffs does not preclude the application
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 of national legislation which prohibits the potentially misleading use
judgment on 7 November 2000, in which it:                                  of a geographical indication of source in the case of which there is no
                                                                           link between the characteristics of the product and its geographical
1.    Dismisses the application;                                           provenance.
2.    Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs;
                                                                           (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
      the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and
      the Commission of the European Communities to bear their
      own costs.
(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            of 7 November 2000
                       of 7 November 2000
                                                                           in Case C-371/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-312/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  the Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court) of the
the Bundesgerichtshof): Schutzverband gegen Unwesen                        High Court of Justice of England and Wales): The Queen
in der Wirtschaft eV v Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer                     v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and
                        GmbH & Co. KG (1)                                                            the Regions (1)
(Protection of geographical indications and designations of                (Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats
origin — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Scope —                             and of wild fauna and flora — Definition of the boundaries
Directive 79/112/EEC — National rules prohibiting the                      of sites eligible for designation as special areas of conser-
potentially misleading use of ‘simple’ geographical indi-                  vation — Discretion of the Member States — Economic and
                         cations of source)                                            social considerations — Severn Estuary)
                          (2001/C 28/03)
                                                                                (2001/C 28/04)
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-371/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
In Case C-312/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Queen’s Bench
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesgerichtshof              Division (Divisional Court) of the High Court of Justice of


title: Case T-701/13: Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Asociación Española de Banca v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/46

         Action brought on 30 December 2013 — Asociación Española de Banca v Commission
   (Case T-701/13)
   2014/C 52/88
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Asociación Española de Banca (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Buendía Sierra, E. Abad Valdenebro, R. Calvo Salinero and A. Lamadrid de Pablo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it categorises the measures which, according to the decision, together constitute the ‘Spanish Tax Lease System’ as new State Aid that is incompatible with the internal market;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 4 of the contested decision, which identify the investors in the Economic Interest Groupings (EIGs) as beneficiaries of the alleged aid and as the sole addressees of the order for recovery;

               —

               in the alternative, annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it orders recovery of the alleged aid;

               —

               annul Article 4 of the contested decision, in so far as it makes a determination as to the lawfulness of the private contracts between the investors and other entities; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-700/13 Bankia v Commission.


title: Case T-404/11: Judgment of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — TCMFG v Council (Common Foreign and Security Policy — Restrictive measures against Iran intended to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 17 April 2013 — TCMFG v Council
   (Case T-404/11) (1)

   (Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures against Iran intended to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment)
   2013/C 156/73
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Turbo Compressor Manufacturer (TCMFG) (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: K. Kleinschmidt, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and J-P. Hix, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 136, p. 65), to the extent that it affects the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/299/CFSP of 23 May 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, to the extent that it affects Turbo Compressor Manufacturer (TCMFG);

               2.

               Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/299, to the extent that it affects TCMFG, for a period which may not exceed two months and ten days as from the date of delivery of this judgment.

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by TCMFG.

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case C-236/13 P: Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Biasutti Hotels srl, formerly Hotels Biasutti Snc, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/21

         Appeal brought on 29 April 2013 by Biasutti Hotels srl, formerly Hotels Biasutti Snc, against the order of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-278/00 to T-280/00, T-282/00 to T-286/00 and T-288/00 to T-295/00 Albergo Quattro Fontane and Others v Commission
   (Case C-236/13 P)
   2013/C 207/34
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Biasutti Hotels srl, formerly Hotels Biasutti Snc (represented by: A. Bianchini and F. Busetto, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the order of the General Court under appeal

               —

               Uphold the forms of order sought at first instance and, accordingly,

                           —

                           annul, in so far as is reasonable and in so far as it concerns the appellant, European Commission Decision No 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul that decision in so far as it imposes an obligation to recover the relief granted and in so far as it requires interest to be added to the amount of relief to be recovered for the periods taken into consideration in the judgment;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant raises nine grounds of appeal:

                  First ground: the General Court erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the measures in question did not confer any advantage upon their beneficiaries given their compensatory nature.

                  Second ground: the Court erred in not excluding, or at least assessing, the likelihood that the measures in question would affect competition and intra-Community trade.

                  Third ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(2)(b) EC (now Article 107(2)(b) TFEU) and Article 87(3)(b) EC (now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Fourth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 87(3)(c) EC (now Article 107(3)(c) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Fifth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogations in Article 87(3)(d) and (e) EC (now Article 107(3)(d) and (e) TFEU) were inapplicable.

                  Sixth ground: the Court erred in holding that the derogation in Article 86(2) EC (now Article 106(2) TFEU) was inapplicable.

                  Seventh ground: the Court erred in not recognising the existence of the aid, thus infringing Article 88(3) EC (now Article 108(3) TFEU) and Article 15 of Regulation No 659/1999. (1)

                  Eighth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the recovery order.

                  Ninth ground: the Court erred in finding that Article 14(1) of Regulation No 659/1999 did not apply to the addition of interest.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-362/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2012 — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2012 — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-362/12)
   2012/C 311/05
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation

      Defendants: Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where under the law of a Member State a taxpayer can choose between two alternative causes of action in order to claim restitution of taxes levied contrary to Articles 49 and 63 TFEU and one of those causes of action benefits from a longer limitation period, is it compatible with the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and legitimate expectations for that Member State to enact legislation curtailing that longer limitation period without notice and retrospectively to the date of the public announcement of the proposed new legislation?

               2.

               Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1 that, at the moment when the taxpayer issued its claim using the cause of action which benefited from the longer limitation period, the availability of the cause of action under national law had only been recognised (i) recently and (ii) by a lower court and was not definitively confirmed by the highest judicial authority until later?


title: Case T-129/05: Action brought on 23 February 2005 by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/38

         Action brought on 23 February 2005 by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-129/05)
   (2005/C 115/68)
   Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was submitted: Spanish
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 February 2005 by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., represented by Fernand de Visscher, Emmanuel Cornu, Eric de Gryse, Donatienne Moreau, Jorge Grau Mora, Alejandro Angulo Labora, Maite Ferrándiz Avendaño, María Baylos Morales and Antonio Velásquez Ibáñez, lawyers.
   Alejandro Sánchez Villar was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 December 2004 in Case R 629/2004-2 partially refusing Community trade mark application No 1997600 ‘WAL-MART’;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               The applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               ‘WAL-MART’ — Application No 1 997 600 for goods and services in all classes except Class 35

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Alejandro Sánchez Villar

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Spanish ‘WAL-MART’ (No 1 732 588) for goods in Class 7 (machinery for gardening)

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition partially upheld for the following products: Machines and machine tools, motors and engines (except for land vehicles), machine coupling and transmission components (except for land vehicles), agricultural implements other than hand operated' and dismissed the opposition for the remainder of the goods and services applied for.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Application dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Infringement of Article 43(2) and Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94


title: Case F-144/11: Action brought on 29 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/27

         Action brought on 29 December 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-144/11)
   2012/C 65/53
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: I. Ruiz Garcia, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision not to admit the applicant to the selection tests following publication of a corrigendum to the notice of competition annulling the eliminatory mark for situational judgment test (d).

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul decision EPSO/R/17/11 and the decision rejecting the applicant's candidature in application of the corrigendum;

               —

               Invite the applicant to the second stage of the competition EPSO/AST/111/10;

               —

               Award the applicant the sum of EUR 10 400 in damages with interest;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-184/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 — Commission v Internet Commerce Network and Dane-Elec Memory (Arbitration clause — Contract concluded in the framework of a special programme in the field of information society technologies (Crossmarc project) — Non-performance of the contract — Repayment of the advance paid by the Community — At-first-demand guarantee of the contractual obligations — Default procedure)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 — Commission v Internet Commerce Network and Dane-Elec Memory
   (Case T-184/06) (1)

   (Arbitration clause - Contract concluded in the framework of a special programme in the field of information society technologies (Crossmarc project) - Non-performance of the contract - Repayment of the advance paid by the Community - At-first-demand guarantee of the contractual obligations - Default procedure)
   (2007/C 247/54)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented: initially by L. Ström van Lier and subsequently by L. Escobar Guerrero, Agents, assisted by P. Elvinger, lawyer)

      Defendants: Internet Commerce Network (Bagnolet, France) and Dane-Elec Memory (Bagnolet)
   Re:
   Action, based on an arbitration clause, for an order that the defendants repay the amount of the advance paid by the Community, and interest for late payment, following the non-performance of Contract No 2000-25366 concluded in the framework of a special programme for research, technological development and demonstration in the field of information society technologies (IST) (1998-2002) concerning the Crossmarc project (Cross-lingual Multi Agent Retail Comparison).
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Orders Dane-Elec Memory to pay to the Commission of the European Communities the principal sum of EUR 55 878 with interest thereon:

                           —

                           at the annual rate of 4,75 % from 16 March 2004 to 31 December 2005;

                           —

                           at the annual rate of 5 % from 1 January to 31 December 2006;

                           —

                           at the annual rate of 5,25 % from 1 January 2007 until the debt is paid in full;

               2.

               Decides that there is no need to adjudicate on the claim against Internet Commerce Network;

               3.

               Orders Dane-Elec Memory to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission;

               4.

               Orders Internet Commerce Network to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212 of 2.9.2006.


title: Case C-497/14: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Stefano Burzio (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 50 — Principle of ne bis in idem — National legislation providing for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for failure to pay withholding taxes — No implementation of EU law — Clear lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/13

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 15 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale ordinario di Torino — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Stefano Burzio
   (Case C-497/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 50 - Principle of ne bis in idem - National legislation providing for an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for failure to pay withholding taxes - No implementation of EU law - Clear lack of jurisdiction))
   (2015/C 213/20)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale ordinario di Torino

      Criminal proceedings against

   Stefano Burzio

      Operative part of the order

   The Court of Justice of the European Union clearly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the question referred by the Tribunale ordinario di Torino (Italy), by decision of 27 October 2014.

      (1)  OJ C 34, 2.2.2015.


title: Case F-129/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1 st Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — CH v Parliament (Civil service — Accredited parliamentary assistants — Early termination of the contract — Request for assistance — Psychological harassment)

text:
               8.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/28

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 12 December 2013 — CH v Parliament
   (Case F-129/12) (1)

   (Civil service - Accredited parliamentary assistants - Early termination of the contract - Request for assistance - Psychological harassment)
   2014/C 39/52
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CH (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, C. Bernard-Glanz and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Alves and E. Taneva, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to terminate the applicant’s employment contract and the decision rejecting his request for assistance seeking recognition of psychological harassment, and an application for damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 19 January 2012, terminating CH’s contract as an accredited parliamentary assistant;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the European Parliament of 15 March 2012 rejecting CH’s request for assistance of 22 December 2011;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay CH the sum of EUR 50 000;

               4.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by CH.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 73.


title: Case C-306/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 4 June 2013 — LVP NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 4 June 2013 — LVP NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-306/13)
   2013/C 252/30
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LVP NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Does Council Regulation (EC) No 1964/2005 of 29 November 2005 on the tariff rates for bananas (OJ 2002 L 316, p. 1), as applied by the European Union in the period from 1 January 2006 to 15 December 2009, infringe Article I; Article XIII(1); Article XIII(2)(d); Article XXVIII; and/or any other applicable article of the GATT 1994, individually or collectively, by introducing a tariff rate of EUR 176/tonne for bananas (GN Code 0803 00 19), contrary to the concessions for bananas negotiated by the EC, before a new negotiated agreement in that regard was concluded within the framework of the WTO?


title: Case C-93/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Essen-NordOst v GFKL Financial Services AG (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2(1) and 4 — Scope — Concepts of ‘supply of services effected for consideration’ and ‘economic activity’ — Sale of defaulted debts — Sale price lower than the face value of those debts — Assumption of responsibility by the purchaser for the recovery of those debts and for the risk of defaulting debtors)

text:
               17.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 370/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Essen-NordOst v GFKL Financial Services AG
   (Case C-93/10) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2(1) and 4 - Scope - Concepts of ‘supply of services effected for consideration’ and ‘economic activity’ - Sale of defaulted debts - Sale price lower than the face value of those debts - Assumption of responsibility by the purchaser for the recovery of those debts and for the risk of defaulting debtors)
   2011/C 370/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Finanzamt Essen-NordOst

      Respondent: GFKL Financial Services AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Articles 2(1), 4, 11A(1)(a) and 13B(d)(2) and (3) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Concepts of supply of services for consideration and economic activity — Factoring — Purchase of risky debts at a price calculated by reference to the probability of debtors’ default — Assumption by the factor of responsibility for recovering the debt and the risk of default

      Operative part of the judgment

   Articles 2(1) and 4 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as meaning that an operator who, at his own risk, purchases defaulted debts at a price below their face value does not effect a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) and does not carry out an economic activity falling within the scope of that directive when the difference between the face value of those debts and their purchase price reflects the actual economic value of the debts at the time of their assignment.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 22.5.2010.


title: Case T-284/17: Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/36

         Action brought on 12 May 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case T-284/17)
   (2017/C 231/45)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marion Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the European Parliament resolution of 2 March 2017 on the request for waiver of the immunity of Marine Le Pen, 2016/2295(IMM);

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay Mrs Marine Le Pen the sum of EUR 35 000 as compensation for the non-material damage suffered;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay Mrs Marine Le Pen the sum of EUR 5 000 by way of reimbursement of recoverable costs;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Protocol No. 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union (‘the protocol’). This plea is divided into four parts.

                           —

                           First part, relating to the scope of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol.

                           —

                           Second part, relating to the purpose of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol.

                           —

                           Third part, relating to the traditional protection by the Parliament of the immunity provided for by Article 8 of the protocol.

                           —

                           Fourth part, alleging infringement of Mrs Le Pen’s immunity under Article 8 of the protocol.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 9 of the protocol. This plea is divided into three parts.

                           —

                           First part, relating to the purpose of Article 9 of the protocol.

                           —

                           Second part, alleging that the European Parliament erred in law regarding the waiver of the immunity of Mrs Le Pen.

                           —

                           Third part, alleging that the resolution to waive immunity infringes Mrs Le Pen’s independence and that of the institution.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment and the principle of sound administration. This plea is divided into two parts.

                           —

                           First part, alleging that Mrs Le Pen was treated differently in relation to comparable situations and infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

                           —

                           Second part, alleging that the contested decision is a clear case of fumus persecutionis and infringes the principle of sound administration.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the rights of the defence.


title: Case T-513/12: Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — NCL v OHIM (NORWEGIAN GETAWAY) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark NORWEGIAN GETAWAY — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/19

      Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — NCL v OHIM (NORWEGIAN GETAWAY)
      (Case T-513/12) (1)

      (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark NORWEGIAN GETAWAY - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
      (2014/C 71/32)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: NCL Corporation Ltd (Miami, Florida, United States) (represented by: N. Grüger, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2012 (Case R 1014/2012-4), concerning an application for registration of the word sign NORWEGIAN GETAWAY as a Community trade mark.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders NCL Corporation Ltd., in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case F-35/12: Action brought on 14 March 2012 — ZZ v BEREC

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/37

         Action brought on 14 March 2012 — ZZ v BEREC
   (Case F-35/12)
   2012/C 138/87
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications

      Subject-matter and description of the dispute

   Annulment of the decision to apply a medical retention provision to the applicant following the pre-recruitment medical examination as from his entry into service and the decision to reject the applicant’s objection.

      Forms of order sought by the applicant

               —

               Annul the decision to reject the applicant’s objection to the decision to apply a medical retention provision to him as from his entry into service;

               —

               where necessary, annul the decision to apply a medical retention provision to the applicant as from his entry into service;

               —

               order the BEREC to pay the costs.


title: Case T-225/99: Action brought on 8 October 1999 by Comafrica SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 6/26                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.1.2000
Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the European                        It still submits that the exemption in question cannot satisfy
Council of Transport Users ASBL against the Commission                  the condition that shippers should enjoy a fair share of the
                of the European Communities                             alleged economic benefits since the clear intention of the
                                                                        revised TACA provisions is to increase prices for through
                                                                        transport and, in particular, maritime transport. Even if
                        (Case T-224/99)                                 the exempted provisions were indispensable for the alleged
                                                                        stability benefit, they would have the effect of eliminating
                                                                        effective competition on through transport rates.
                         (2000/C 6/48)
                                                                        Moreover, the Multi-modal Group Report makes it clear,
                                                                        according to the applicant, that the Commission has to
                  (Language of the case: English)                       investigate a number of crucial issues and, in particular,
                                                                        ensure that there are sufficient safeguards for shippers before
                                                                        considering authorising any not-below-cost rule. However, the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Commission has failed to consider these relevant issues and
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              therefore, its reasoning in the contested decision is to be
European Communities on 7 October 1999 by the European                  considered as defective.
Council of Transport Users ASBL, represented by Mark Clough
QC, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of          The applicant further claims that the defendant institution has
Aloyse May, 31 Grand Rue.                                               misused its powers or acted outside its competence by
                                                                        effectively granting an exemption under Regulation
                                                                        Nos 4056/86 for a form of price fixing intended to enhance
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the price fixing in the maritime transport, when inland
                                                                        transport should fall outside that regulation.
— annul the Commission Decision;
                                                                        Finally, the contested decision should not have followed the
                                                                        procedure applicable to complaints under Articles 10 and
— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs;                    11(3) of Regulations 1017/68 and 4056/86.
— take any measures of preliminary enquiry that the Court
     may consider necessary.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Action brought on 8 October 1999 by Comafrica SpA
                                                                        and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. against the
The present application concerns the Commission’s decision                        Commission of the European Communities
not to raise serious doubts under Article 12(3) of Regulation
No 1017/68 in respect of the provisions in the revised                                            (Case T-225/99)
Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement (TACA) falling within
the scope of Regulation No 1017/68. As a consequence of this
act, the not-below-cost rule in Article 10 and related provisions                                  (2000/C 6/49)
of the revised TACA enjoy an individual exemption for three
years until 5 May 2002. The exemption authorises the TACA
lines to agree not to resell the inland transport services which                           (Language of the case: English)
they purchase in Europe below the out-of-pocket ‘costs’ of
purchasing that transport.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 8 October 1999 by Comafrica SpA
The applicant submits first at all that the contested act does          and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co., represented by Bernard
not satisfy any of the conditions for individual exemption              O’Connor, Solicitor, and Bonifacio Garcı́a Porras, with an
contained in Article 5 of Regulation Nos 1017/68 and their              address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Arsene
equivalent in Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty. In particular, the        Kronshagen, 22 rue Marie Adelaide.
Commission’s decision is contrary to previous decisions and
to the conclusions of the 1997 Multi-modal Group report
presented to Commissioner Van Miert. These should have                  The applicants claim that the Court should:
made clear that the liner Conference inland transport price
fixing provides no economic benefits (in particular, the alleged        — declare void, pursuant to Articles 230 and 231 EC, Com-
stability of maritime transport liner conference tariffs) and                mission Regulation (EC) No 1586/99 fixing the reduction
that, even if there were to be such a benefit, the restrictions of           coefficient for the determination of the quantity of bananas
competition would not be indispensable to its achievement.                   to be allocated to each operator for 1999;
 ---pagebreak--- 8.1.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 6/27
— order the Commission, pursuant to Articles 235 and 288                Action brought on 11 October 1999 by Kvaerner War-
    EC, to make good any damage, and interest thereon, caused           now Werft GmbH against the Commission of the Euro-
    to the applicants, by the wrongful adoption of Regulation                                  pean Communities
    No 1586/99;
                                                                                (Case T-227/99)
— declare that the Commission pay the cost incurred in the
    making of the application.                                                                    (2000/C 6/50)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 11 October 1999 by Kvaerner
The present application concerns the administration by the              Warnow Werft GmbH, of Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany,
Commission of the rules governing the allocation of the annual          represented by Dr Michael Schütte, of Bruckhaus Westrick
licence entitlement to the applicants for the import of bananas         Heller Löber, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxem-
within the third country tariff rate quotas established by              bourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
Article 18 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 Feb-
ruary 1993 and as substantially amended by EC Regulation
No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998. The application arises actually             The applicant claims that the Court should:
out of the adoption, by the Commission, of a reduction
coefficient based on a pretended incorrect reference quantity           1. Annul the Commission’s decision of 8 July 1999,
figure which reduces the applicants’ licence entitlement for the
1999 marketing year.
                                                                            in the alternative: annul the Commission’s decision in so
                                                                            far as the Commission wrongly used as basis of the
                                                                            calculation of the demand for repayment a total amount
The applicants put forward the following submissions:                       of aid approved of DEM 1 246,9 million (less 27 million
                                                                            aid on closure) instead of the total amount of the operating
                                                                            aid actually granted;
— The definitive reference quantity for 1999 is incorrect. As
    a matter of fact, the Commission knew, when it adopted              2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
    the definitive reduction coefficient for 1999, that the
    quantities of bananas actually imported or licences used
    were substantially lower than the reference quantities
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
    claimed by the operators;
                                                                        In the contested decision, addressed to Germany, aid by
— Allowing double counting or overclaims of 4 % or 3 % to               Germany in favour of the applicant in the amount of EUR 41,5
    occur is not a case of Commission exercising a discretion.          million was declared to be incompatible with the common
    It has no discretion, only a duty to determine the reduction        market under Article 87(1) EC. In a number of previous
    coefficient in accordance with the law, and it has acted in         decisions the Commission had made a restriction of the
    breach of that duty;                                                applicant’s annual shipbuilding capacity a condition of the
                                                                        approval of the aid. It now reaches the conclusion that the
                                                                        applicant failed to comply with those restriction obligations.
— The Commission did not correctly apply the rules when it              To the extent that the approved capacity was exceeded,
    knowingly accepted a 4 % or 3 % overstatement of the                therefore, the aid is no longer consistent with Community law.
    reference quantity. Furthermore, the Commission cannot
    justify these errors by stating that it has difficulties in
    establishing the precise quantities of bananas which had            The applicant contests the decision on the following grounds:
    been imported. The calculation of the 1999 reduction
    coefficient no longer refers to quantities of bananas                   Breach of essential procedural require-
    marketed during the years preceding the common organi-                  ments
    sation of the market but on the basis of the bananas
    actually imported or on the basis of the licences used
    during 1994, 1995 and 1996.                                         — At the time when the contested decision was voted on, the
                                                                            Commission was irregularly composed, since there was no
                                                                            legal basis for the ’suspension’ of Mr Bangemann. In
                                                                            addition, two members of the Commission, namely Com-
                                                                            mission President Santer and Mrs Bonino, had already
                                                                            been elected to the European Parliament, that being
                                                                            incompatible with their membership of the Commission.


title: Case C-551/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola (Croatia) lodged on 23 October 2015 — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Kalus Tederahn

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Puli-Pola (Croatia) lodged on 23 October 2015 — Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Kalus Tederahn
   (Case C-551/15)
   (2016/C 048/16)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Referring court

   Općinski sud u Puli-Pola

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pula Parking d.o.o.

      Defendant: Sven Kalus Tederahn

      Questions referred

               1.

               Taking into account the legal nature of the relationship between the parties to the proceedings, is Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) applicable in the present case?

               2.

               Does Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 relate also to the jurisdiction of notaries in the Republic of Croatia?

      (1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/52

         Removal from the register of Case C-301/01 (1)

   (2004/C 106/92)
   By order of 19 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-301/01: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

      (1)  OJ C 259 of 15.9.2001.


title: Case T-226/06: Action brought on 25 August 2006 — PTV v OHIM (MAP&GUIDE The Mapware Company)

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/15

         Action brought on 25 August 2006 — PTV v OHIM (MAP&GUIDE The Mapware Company)
   (Case T-226/06)
   (2006/C 249/36)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 June 2006 (Case R 1175/2005-1);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MAP&GUIDE The Mapware Company’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42.

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection in part of the application for registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: The mark for which registration is sought is distinctive for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94. (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)


title: Case T-256/04 P: Judgment of the Court of 13 February 2007 — Mundipharma v OHIM-Altana Pharma (RESPICUR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark RESPICUR — Earlier national word mark RESPICORT — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/33

         Judgment of the Court of 13 February 2007 — Mundipharma v OHIM-Altana Pharma (RESPICUR)
   (Case T-256/04 P) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark RESPICUR - Earlier national word mark RESPICORT - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Proof of use of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2007/C 82/72)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Mundipharma AG (Basle, Switzerland) (represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by B. Müller and subsequently by G. Schneider, Agents)

      Other the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Altana Pharma AG (Konstanz, Germany) (H. Becker, lawyer)
   Re:
   Action for annulment against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2004 (Case R 1004/2002-2) relating to opposition proceedings involving Munidpharma AG and Altana Pharma AG.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 19 April 2004 (Case R 1004/2002-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, except for those relating to the intervention;

               3.

               Orders the applicant to bear its costs relating to the intervention;

               4.

               Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Case C-456/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Expendedores de Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT) v Administración del Estado (Free movement of goods — Articles 34 TFEU and 37 TFEU — National legislation prohibiting tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products — Rule concerning the existence and operation of a monopoly on the marketing of tobacco products — Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions — Justification — Consumer protection)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Asociación Nacional de Expendedores de Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT) v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-456/10) (1)

   (Free movement of goods - Articles 34 TFEU and 37 TFEU - National legislation prohibiting tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products - Rule concerning the existence and operation of a monopoly on the marketing of tobacco products - Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions - Justification - Consumer protection)
   2012/C 174/07
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asociación Nacional de Expendedores de Tabaco y Timbre (ANETT)

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Intervening parties: Unión de Asociaciones de Estanqueros de España, Logivend SLU, Organización Nacional de Asociaciones de Estanqueros

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Article 34 TFEU — National monopoly on the marketing of tobacco products — Prohibition of tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products imposed for the benefit of wholesalers — Proportionality

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 34 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits tobacco retailers from importing tobacco products from other Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-466/17: Action brought on 27 July 2017 — Printeos and Others v Commission

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/16

         Action brought on 27 July 2017 — Printeos and Others v Commission
   (Case T-466/17)
   (2017/C 318/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Printeos, SA (Alcalá de Henares, Spain), Printeos Cartera Industrial, SL (Alcalá de Henares), Tompla Scandinavia AB (Stockholm, Sweden), Tompla France (Fleury Mérogis, France) and Tompla Druckerzeugnisse Vertriebs GmbH (Leonberg, Germany) (represented by: H. Brokelmann and P. Martínez-Lage Sobredo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 4112 final of 16 June 2017 amending Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (AT.39780 — Envelopes);

               —

               in the alternative, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the amount of the fine imposed in Article 1 of the contested decision, and as a consequence (i) reduce the basic amount of the fine by 95,3671 % pursuant to point 37 of the Guidelines on setting fines and (ii) reduce, additionally, the amount of the fine, after deductions for leniency and settlement, by at least 33 %;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By judgment of 13 December 2016 (Case T-95/15, Printeos v Commission), the General Court annulled Article 2(1)(e) of Commission Decision C(2014) 9295 final of 10 December 2014, in Case AT.39780, which imposed on the applicants a fine of EUR 4 729 000.
   The contested decision contains additional information on the methodology which was applied and the facts taken into account by the Commission when setting and adjusting the basic amount of the fines in the 2014 Decision and when imposing a fine of the same amount as that imposed under the 2014 Decision.
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations and non bis in idem.

                           —

                           The applicants claim in this regard that the contested decision amends the 2014 Decision, despite its being final, with the sole exception of Article 2(1)(e), which was annulled by the General Court, and that it imposes again the same fine as that already imposed by the 2014 Decision and annulled by the General Court.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equality of treatment in the setting of the amount of the fine.

                           —

                           The applicants claim in this respect that the contested decision makes exceptional adjustments to the basic amounts of the fines pursuant to point 37 of the Guidelines on setting fines, which result in discrimination detrimental to the applicants.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the principles of proportionality and of non-discrimination in the setting of the amount of the fine.

                           —

                           The applicants claim in this respect that the contested decision does not take into account the fine already imposed by the Autoridad Española de la Competencia (Spanish Competition Authority) on 25 March 2013 for anti-competitive practices in the paper envelopes sector, or take account of the fact that the applicants are the only companies amongst those fined by the Commission which were also fined by a national competition authority.


title: Case F-142/06 R: Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 1 February 2007 — Bligny v Commission (Interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Application for provisional measures — Urgency — None)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/41

         Order of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal of 1 February 2007 — Bligny v Commission
   (Case F-142/06 R)
   (Interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Application for provisional measures - Urgency - None)
   (2007/C 56/78)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Francesco Bligny (Tassin-la-Demi-Lune, France) (represented by: P. Lebel-Nourissat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   First, suspend the decisions of the selection board of 23 November and 7 December 2006 refusing to admit the applicant to Open Competition EPSO/AD/26/05 and secondly, as a provisional measure, order the marking of his written test in that competition.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-535/08: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 March 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia — Italy) — Maria Catena Rita Pignataro v Ufficio Centrale Circoscrizionale c/o Tribunale di Catania, Ufficio Centrale Regionale per l'elezione del Presidente dell'Assemblea Regionale Siciliana c/o Corte d'Appello di Palermo, Assemblea Regionale Siciliana, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Economia, Andrea Vitale, Antonino Di Guardo, Fabio M. Mancuso (Eligibility requirements for regional elections — Requirement of residence in the region concerned — Articles 17 EC and 18 EC — Fundamental rights — No link with Community law — Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/2

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 March 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia — Italy) — Maria Catena Rita Pignataro v Ufficio Centrale Circoscrizionale c/o Tribunale di Catania, Ufficio Centrale Regionale per l'elezione del Presidente dell'Assemblea Regionale Siciliana c/o Corte d'Appello di Palermo, Assemblea Regionale Siciliana, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Economia, Andrea Vitale, Antonino Di Guardo, Fabio M. Mancuso
   (Case C-535/08) (1)

   (Eligibility requirements for regional elections - Requirement of residence in the region concerned - Articles 17 EC and 18 EC - Fundamental rights - No link with Community law - Court clearly lacking jurisdiction)
   2009/C 167/03
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria Catena Rita Pignataro

      Defendants: Ufficio Centrale Circoscrizionale c/o Tribunale di Catania, Ufficio Centrale Regionale per l'elezione del Presidente dell'Assemblea Regionale Siciliana c/o Corte d'Appello di Palermo, Assemblea Regionale Siciliana, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Ministero dell’Economia, Andrea Vitale, Antonino Di Guardo, Fabio M. Mancuso

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia — Interpretation of Article 6 EU, Article 3 of the First Additional Protocol and Article 2 of the Fourth Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights — Interpretation of Articles 17 EC and 18 EC — Compatibility of regional legislation restricting the right of an Italian national to be nominated for election on the basis of a requirement of residence in the region

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Articles 17 EC and 18 EC do not preclude national legislation which, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, includes among the requirements for eligibility for election to a regional assembly, the obligation to be residing in the region concerned at the time when nominations are put forward.

               2.

               The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly does not have jurisdiction to reply to the first question referred by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 7.2.2009.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-289/02: Telepharmacy Solutions Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Word mark TELEPHARMACY SOLUTIONS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Observance of the rights of defence)

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 July 2004
   in Case T-289/02: Telepharmacy Solutions Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Word mark TELEPHARMACY SOLUTIONS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Observance of the rights of defence)
   (2004/C 239/42)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-289/02: Telepharmacy Solutions Inc., established in North Billerica, Massachusetts (United States), represented by R. Davis, barrister, and M. Medyckyj, solicitor, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: S. Bonne) — action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 June 2002 (Case R 108/2001-4), concerning registration of the word sign TELEPHARMACY SOLUTIONS as a Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.


title: Case F-77/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Vasilev v Commission (Civil Service — Open competition — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/208/11 — Lack of availability, at the preliminary test, of a keyboard for the applicant to use to which he was accustomed — Refusal of admission to the assessment tests — Equal treatment)

text:
               30.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 352/24

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 17 October 2013 — Vasilev v Commission
   (Case F-77/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Open competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/208/11 - Lack of availability, at the preliminary test, of a keyboard for the applicant to use to which he was accustomed - Refusal of admission to the assessment tests - Equal treatment)
   2013/C 352/46
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: Vasil Vasilev (Sandanski, Bulgaia) (represented by: R. Nedin, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and N. Nikolova, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision not to admit the applicant to the assessment tests in competition EPSO/AD/208/11.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Mr Vasilev to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012, p. 18.


title: Case T-392/12: Action brought on 3 September 2012 — Luigi Lavazza SpA v OHIM

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/29

      Action brought on 3 September 2012 — Luigi Lavazza SpA v OHIM
      (Case T-392/12)
      (2012/C 331/56)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

         Parties

         Applicant: Luigi Lavazza SpA (Turin, Italy) (represented by: A. Vanzetti, G.E. Sironi, M. Ricolfi and C.E. Mezzetti, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Commercialunione Prima Srl (Bresso, Italy)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  uphold the action and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 26 June 2012 in Case R 124/2011-1, on grounds of infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

                  —

                  reject the opposition of Commercialunione Prima Srl to the European Union-wide registration of international trade mark No W000943981 ‘Lavazza a modo mio’ and, consequently, grant the same scope of registration;

                  —

                  order that the costs borne by Luigi Lavazza SpA in the proceedings be fully awarded in its favour.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: Luigi Lavazza SpA

         Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘LAVAZZA A MODO MIO’ for goods and services in Classes 11, 29, 30 and 43 — International registration for European Union No W00 943 981

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Commercialunione Prima Srl

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative marks ‘A MODO MIO’, ‘la PIZZA A MODO MIO’ and ‘A MODO MIO BIRRA & MUSIC’ for services in Class 42

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Action partially upheld

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: The Board of Appeal took note of the withdrawal of the application for registration of ‘LAVAZZA A MODO MIO’ for Class 43 only and dismissed the action as to the remainder

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and the second part of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-169/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court dated 2 April 2004, in the case of Abbey National plc (with Inscape Investments Ltd as Joined Party) against Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

text:
               29.5.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court dated 2 April 2004, in the case of Abbey National plc (with Inscape Investments Ltd as Joined Party) against Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
   (Case C-169/04)
   (2004/C 146/04)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by direction of the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, dated 2 April 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 April 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Abbey National plc (with Inscape Investments Ltd as Joined Party) and Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the following questions:

               1.

               Does the exemption for ‘management of special investment funds as defined by Member States’, contained in Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive (1) mean that the Member States have the power to define the activities comprising the ‘management’ of the special investment funds, as well as the power to define the special investment funds which may benefit from the exemption?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is no and the term ‘management’ in Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive is to be given an independent Community law meaning, in the light of Council Directive 85/611/EEC as amended on the co-ordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (‘the UCITS Directive’) (2), are charges made by a depositary or trustee for the services it provides pursuant to articles 7 and 14 of the UCITS Directive, national regulatory provisions and the relevant fund rules, exempt supplies of ‘management of special investment funds’ under Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive?

               3.

               Again, if the answer to question 1 is no and the term ‘management’ is to be given an independent Community law meaning, does the exemption for the ‘management of special investment funds’ in Article 13B(d)(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive apply to services performed by a third party manager in respect of the administrative management of the funds?

      (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 L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1).

      (2)  of 20 December 1985 (OJ L 375, 31.12.1985, p. 3).