title: Case C-58/99: Action brought on 19 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
C 121/10               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.5.1999
4. If the second question is to be answered in the affirmative,                compatible with Articles 73b and 52 of the EC Treaty,
     does the fact that in December 1995 the Netherlands                       such a procedure must be justified by overriding consider-
     programme for combating Aujeszky’s disease in pigs was                    ations in the public interest and based on criteria which
     approved by the European Commission for 1996 have any                     are objective, fixed and public, so that the discretion
     bearing on the question whether Article 2(1) of the                       enjoyed by the national authorities is reduced to a
     Veordening Bestrijding Ziekte van Aujeszky is applicable                  minimum.
     to the present case? If so, what bearing does it have?
                                                                           c) In the context of the privatisation of ENI and Telecom
(1) Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a                Italia, the Commission maintains that the introduction of
    procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical       special powers is not justified. The Italian authorities
    standards and regulations (OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8).                     should have been able to meet their needs with order
                                                                               provisions which did not involve the compulsory limi-
                                                                               tation of property rights and were accordingly less restric-
                                                                               tive of the freedoms at issue.
Action brought on 19 February 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                          (Case C-58/99)
                                                                           Action brought on 19 February 1999 by the Commission
                         (1999/C 121/18)                                   of the European Communities against 1. Manuel Pereira
                                                                           Roldão & Filhos, Lda.; 2. Instituto Superior Técnico; and
                                                                                3. King, Taudevin & Gregson (Holdings) Ltd
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 February
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                                 (Case C-59/99)
represented by Antonio Aresu and Maria Patakia of its Legal
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                                          (1999/C 121/19)
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                         An action against 1. Manuel Pereira Roldão & Filhos, Lda.; 2.
                                                                           Instituto Superior Técnico; and 3. King, Taudevin & Gregson
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                (Holdings) Ltd was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities on 19 February 1999 by the
— declare that, by adopting Articles 1(5) and 2 of the                     Commission of the European Communities, represented by
     consolidated text of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994,                Francisco de Sousa Fialho, of its Legal Service, and by Olivier
     converted with amendments into Law No 474 of 30 July                  Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to its
     1994, and the decrees concerning certain special powers               Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     in relation to the privatisation of ENI and Telecom Italia,           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under       Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     Articles 52, 59 and 73b of the EC Treaty;
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-              The applicant claims that the Court should order the defend-
     ings.                                                                 ants to pay EUR 357 813, together with EUR 185 833,78 by
                                                                           way of interest until 1 January 1999, plus any interest accrued
                                                                           until full repayment is actually made; and the costs of these
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        proceedings.
a) The sentence in Article 1(5) of the consolidated text which
     provides that certain work may be undertaken only by                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     individual professionals who have been registered as
     provided for by statute for at least five years is incompatible       This action has been brought under Article 181 of the EC
     with Articles 59 and 52 of the EC Treaty, in so far as it             Treaty seeking repayment of money paid in advence under a
     unlawfully excludes any professional legally operating in             contract in terms of which the European Community under-
     other Member States or whose establishment in Italy took              took to give financial assistance to the first applicant to enable
     place recently.                                                       him to install a low-cost, moderate pollution tank for the
                                                                           melting of lead crystal, as part of the promotion of energy
                                                                           technology in Europe (thermie programme) provided for by
b) Article 2 of the consolidated text, which confers special               Council Regulation (EEC) No 2008/90 (1). That contract was
     powers on the Treasury Minister, places a restriction on              terminated by the applicant on the ground of breach of
     freedom of movement for persons and on the right of                   contract by the defendants.
     establishment.
     The procedure for the authorisation of significant share              (1) OJ L 185, 17.7.1990, p. 1.
     purchases by investors and of agreements between share-
     holders gives the national authorities a power to discrimi-
     nate which they may use arbitrarily. In order to be


title: Case T-406/07: Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe v OHIM (PAYWEB CARD)

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/21

         Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe v OHIM (PAYWEB CARD)
   (Case T-406/07)
   (2008/C 8/38)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Caisse Fédérale du Crédit Mutuel Centre Est Europe (Strasbourg, France) (represented by: P. Greffe and J. Schouman, lawyers)

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

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2007, notified on 17 September 2007, Case R 120/2007-1 refusing its application for registration of Community trade mark PAYWEB CARD, application No 3 861 051, for all the goods and services designated in classes 9, 36 and 38;

               —

               Registration of Community trade mark application PAYWEB CARD No 3 861 051, for all the goods and services designated.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘PAYWEB CARD’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 38 (Application No 3 861 051)

      Decision of the Examiner: Application for registration refused

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1) in that, according to the applicant and contrary to the findings in the contested decision, the term ‘PAYWEB CARD’ is not descriptive but, on the contrary, distinctive in relation to the goods and services designated.

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


title: Case F-50/09: Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/27

         Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Missir Mamachi di Lusignano v Commission
   (Case F-50/09)
   2009/C 167/55
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano (Kerkhove-Avelgem, Belgium) (represented by: F. Di Gianni and R. Antonini, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for compensation for material and non-material damage arising as a result of the murder of a Commission official and his wife.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 3 February 2009 rejecting Complaint No R/406/08 seeking compensation for the material and non-material damage arising as a result of the murder of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano and of his wife on 18 September 2006 in Rabat, Morocco, where he was posted for reasons of service;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the heirs and successors of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano the sum of EUR 2 552 837,96, corresponding to the murdered official’s salary spanning a period of 26 years, to be reassessed in order to take account of that person’s career prospects (as regards both the automatic addition of points on the pay scale and likely promotions in grade) by way of compensation for financial loss;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the heirs and successors of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano the sum of EUR 250 000,00 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the victim before his death;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the heirs and successors of Alessandro Missir Mamachi di Lusignano the sum of EUR 1 276 512,00 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the children of the victim, who witnessed his tragic murder;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to Livio Missir Mamachi di Lusignano the sum of EUR 212 752,00 by way of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by that person as the father of the victim;

               —

               order the Commission to pay compensatory interest and default interest accrued;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Action brought on 25 February 1997 by MD Foods Amba and Danske Mejeriers Fællesorganisation, acting on behalf of Kløvermælk Amba, Løgismose Produktion A/S, Mejeriselskabet Vesthimmerland, Nordex Food A/S, Sinai Landmejeri, c/o Gunnar Larsen, and Sædager Andelsmejeri against Commission of the European Communities (Case C-81/97)

text:
No C 131/6          [ EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 4. 97
    in difficulty and in which competition is very severe in          Munich) of 5 December 1996, received at the Court
    the Community. The Maribel II/III scheme thus                     Registry on 24 February 1997, for a preliminary ruling in
    constitutes a general measure which, for budgetary                the case of Happy Sports Michl OHG against Finanzamt
    reasons, cannot yet be extended to all sectors .                  ( Tax Office ) Landshut on the following questions:
    The Commission has in no way demonstrated in the                  1 . Does the hiring out at an hourly charge of sports
    contested decision to what extent the Maribel II/III                   facilities to users ( for example of tennis courts to
    scheme is alleged to have an adverse effect on trade                   tennis players ) come under the 'leasing or letting of
    between Member States . It confines itself to deducing                 immovable property' within the meaning of the tax
    from     the   abovementioned      statement     that  such            exemption in Article 13B ( b ) of the sixth Council
    undertakings are ' by definition' in competition with                  Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States
    the products of foreign undertakings,
                                                                           relating to turnover taxes — Common system of
                                                                           value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment (') ('the
— ( In the alternative ) Maribel II/III is compatible with                 sixth Directive')?
    the common market . The Maribel II/III scheme is
    intended to boost employment by the creation of less              2 . If question 1 is answered in the affirmative : is
    skilled jobs,                                                          'leasing or letting of immovable property excluding . . .
                                                                           lettings of permanently installed equipment' in
— ( In the alternative ) Breach of the principle of                        Article 13B ( b ) ( 3 ) of the sixth Directive to be
    proportionality                                                        interpreted as meaning that the liability to tax on
                                                                           lettings of equipment encompasses the letting of the
                                                                           surrounding building and immovable property, or is
    The recovery imposed is a disproportionate sanction in                 the hiring out of sports facilities to be split up into an
    relation to the infringement committed. In view of the                 exempt letting of immovable property and a taxable
    uncertainty as to the definition of a 'general measure',               letting of equipment ?
    it is difficult to regard the infringement as 'serious'.
    Nor is it clear from the contested decision what effect           (') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
    the measure has on trade between Member States . It is
    only in the enacting terms that the Commission
    requires the Belgian State to recover the aid, without,
    however, referring to the grounds on which it took the
    decision to do so .
                                                                      Action brought on 25 February 1997 by MD Foods Amba
    Breach of the principles of proportionality, sound                and Danske Mejeriers Fællesorganisation, acting on behalf
    administration and legal certainty, of the rights of the          of Kløvermælk Amba, Løgismose Produktion A/S,
    defence and of legitimate expectations: the                       Mejeriselskabet Vesthimmerland, Nordex Food A/S,
    Commission should have had recourse to less far                  Sinai Landmejeri, c/o Gunnar Larsen, and Sædager
    reaching measures, such as already requesting, pending            Andelsmejeri against Commission of the European
    the procedure pursuant to Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC                                            Communities
    Treaty, that payment of the ( continuing) aid be                                             ( Case C-81/97)
    deferred,
                                                                                ( 97/C 131/14 )
— ( In the alternative ) Absolute impossibility of recovery
    in view of the large number of undertakings                       On 25 February 1997, a case was referred to the Court of
    concerned .                                                       Justice of the European Communities which had been
                                                                      brought before the Court of First Instance by MD Foods
                                                                      Amba and Danske Mejeriers Faellesorganisation, acting on
                                                                      behalf of Klovermaslk Amba and Others. In the case,
                                                                      which had been given the number T- 13 9/96, the Court of
                                                                      First Instance issued a referral order and referred the case
                                                                      to the Court of Justice in order that the latter might rule
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht               on the application for annulment.
Miinchen by order of that court of 5 December 1996 in
the case of Happy Sports Michl OHG against Finanzamt                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             Landshut
                        ( Case C-79/97)                               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
                          ( 97/C 131/13 )                             those in Case T-139/96 , MD Foods Amba and Others v.
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities (*).
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (') OJ No C 354 , 23 . 11 . 1996 , p . 28 .
European Communities by order of the Fourteenth
Chamber of the Finanzgericht Miinchen ( Finance Court,


title: Case T-175/04: Action brought on 7 May 2004 by Mr Donal Gordon against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/17

         Action brought on 7 May 2004 by Mr Donal Gordon against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-175/04)
   (2004/C 179/33)
   Language of the case: English
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 May 2004 by Mr Donal Gordon, Brussels, Belguim, represented by Mr M. Byrne, Solicitor.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the appointing authority's Decision in response to the applicant's complaint R/402/03;

               —

               declare the Commission Decision of 26 April 2002 on general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff regulations or the relevant current measure invalid to the extent that reports are finalised before all appeals of the same grade in the same unit have been processed;

               —

               declare Administrative Notice 99-2002 of 3 December 2002 or the relevant current measure invalid to the extent that it sets a target average mark;

               —

               award the applicant damages in compensation for the material damage to his career prospects, to his morale and to his health;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present action.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of his conclusions, the applicant submits in the first place a breach of an essential procedural requirement and the rights of defence in that the countersigning officer failed to have a dialogue with the official within 5 working days as required by Article 7(5) of Commission Decision of 26 April 2002 on general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations.
   The applicant also invokes a manifest error of assessment by the countersigning officer in signing the applicant's career development report, having regard to the anomalous and contradictory data available to him. The applicant furthermore invokes a misuse of powers because of his failing to take any steps to correct such manifest error of assessment.
   The applicant finally invokes a breach of an essential procedural requirement and the rights of defence in that the internal appeal system set in place by Commission Decision of 26 April 2002 was rendered inherently ineffective by the fact that by the time an appeal was launched, the other reports in the same unit, to which the appealed report was linked by an average mark, had been irrevocably validated, and by the limited number of points set aside to cover appeals.


               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/40

         (2006/C 96/62)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 86, 8.4.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 74, 25.3.2006

      OJ C 60, 11.3.2006

      OJ C 48, 25.2.2006

      OJ C 36, 11.2.2006

      OJ C 22, 28.1.2006

      OJ C 10, 14.1.2006

   These texts are available on:

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

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-342/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Article 63 TFEU — EEA Agreement — Article 40 — Taxation of dividends paid to non-resident pension funds)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 8 November 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-342/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Article 63 TFEU - EEA Agreement - Article 40 - Taxation of dividends paid to non-resident pension funds)
   2013/C 9/06
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and I. Koskinen, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: J. Heliskoski, acting as Agent)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: C. Vang, acting as Agent), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by C. Wissels and M. Noort, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by H. Walker, acting as Agent, and G. Facenna, Barrister)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Art. 63 TFEU and Art. 40 of the EEA Agreement — Tax discrimination — National legislation making dividends paid by resident companies to foreign pension funds subject to a stricter tax regime than that applicable to national pension funds

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by introducing and maintaining in force a scheme under which dividends paid to foreign pension funds are taxed in a discriminatory manner, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement of 2 May 1992.

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Finland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 234, 28.8.2010.


title: Case C-262/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court) (Denmark) lodged on 19 June 2008 — CopyGene A/S v Skatteministeriet

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court) (Denmark) lodged on 19 June 2008 — CopyGene A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-262/08)
   (2008/C 209/50)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Referring court
   Østre Landsret
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: CopyGene A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the term activity ‘closely related’ to hospital care in Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive (1) to be interpreted as implying a temporal requirement so that the hospital care to which the service is closely related must exist or be specifically performed, commenced or envisaged, or is it sufficient that the service will potentially be closely related to possible, but as yet non-existent or undetermined future hospital care, so that the services supplied by a stem cell bank, consisting in the collection, transportation, analysis and storage of umbilical cord blood from newborns for autologous use, are covered by it?
               In that connection, is it relevant that the services described cannot be performed at a later time than the time of delivery?

               2.

               Is Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as covering general preventative services where the services are supplied before the hospital or medical care takes place and before the hospital or medical care is required in both temporal and health terms?

               3.

               Is the term ‘other duly recognised establishments of a similar nature’ in Article 13A(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive to be interpreted as covering private stem cell banks where the services — which are performed and supplied by professional health personnel in the form of nurses, midwives and bioanalysts — consists in the collection, transportation, analysis and storage of umbilical cord blood from newborns with a view to autologous use in connection with possible future hospital care where the stem cell banks concerned do not receive support from the public heath insurance scheme and where the expenditure on the services provided by these stem cell banks is not covered by the public health insurance scheme?
               In that connection, is it relevant whether or not a private stem cell bank has obtained authorisation from a Member State's competent health authorities to handle tissue and cells — in the form of processing, preserving and storing stem cells from umbilical cord blood for autologous use — pursuant to national legislation which implements Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells (2)?

               4.

               Is the answer to Questions 1 to 3 affected by whether the above services are supplied with a view to possible allogeneic use or provided by a private stem cell bank which has obtained authorisation from a Member State's competent health authorities to handle tissue and cells — in the form of processing, preserving and storing stem cells from umbilical cord blood for autologous use — pursuant to national legislation which implements Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells?

      (1)  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).

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 102, p. 48.


title: Case T-541/08: Action brought on 15 December 2008 — Sasol e.a./Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/57

         Action brought on 15 December 2008 — Sasol e.a./Commission
   (Case T-541/08)
   (2009/C 44/99)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Sasol Ltd (Johannesburg, South Africa), Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH (Hamburg, Germany), Sasol Wax International AG (Hamburg, Germany), Sasol Wax GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: W. Bosch, U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               to annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on Sasol Limited, Sasol Holding in Germany GmbH, Sasol Wax International AG and Sasol Wax GmbH pursuant to Article 2 of the decision; and

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the applicants' legal and other costs and expenses in relation to this matter.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   This application seeks the partial annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of the Commission's decision C(2008) 5476 final, of 1 October 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA in Case COMP/39.181 — Candle Waxes on behalf of the applicants.
   In its decision, the Commission found that a number of producers of paraffin waxes and slack wax had operated a cartel from 1992 to 2005 in which they held regular meetings to discuss prices, to allocate markets and/or customers and to exchange sensitive commercial information with regard to paraffin waxes and slack wax sold to end customers in Germany.
   The applicants base their application on the following pleas in law and main arguments:
   According to the applicants, the Commission was wrong to hold Sasol Limited (the parent company of the Sasol group), Sasol Holding in Germany and Sasol Wax International AG liable for ‘the joint venture period’ (1 May 1995 until 30 June 2002). The applicants submit that the Commission's assumption that Sasol Limited (via its subsidiary Sasol Holding in Germany) exercised a decisive influence over Schümann Sasol International AG amounts to a manifest error of assessment of the evidence available to the Commission.
   The applicants further submit that the Commission also erred in holding Sasol Limited, Sasol Holding in Germany and Sasol Wax International AG liable for ‘the Sasol period’ from 1 July 2002 to 28 April 2005. Further, they claim that the Commission applied the wrong legal standard and ignored the evidence brought forward by Sasol (1) demonstrating that Sasol Wax had acted autonomously on the market, thereby rebutting any presumption of parental liability.
   Moreover, it is submitted that the Commission erred in not holding VARA jointly and severally liable for ‘the Schümann period’ (from 3 September 1992 until 30 April 1995). Instead of holding VARA (2) liable, which exercised control over the entity participating in the infringements, the Commission attributed comprehensive liability exclusively to Sasol and compromised thus, possible means of recourse for Sasol against VARA.
   The applicants submit that the Commission further committed manifest errors in determining the basic amount of the fine to be imposed to Sasol by wrongfully inflating the turnover to be taken into account and including turnover with products to which the infringement did not directly or indirectly relate within the meaning of Article 23(2)(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 (3). The Commission also erred in law in choosing the wrong methodology for determining the basic amount to be applied in cases where the fine decision is directed at different addresses for different periods of the infringement.
   Furthermore, it is submitted, that the Commission erred in assuming a leading role of Sasol with respect to paraffin waxes and wrongfully increased the fine to be issued against Sasol by an excessive and disproportionate amount of 50 %.
   The applicants further contend that the Commission wrongfully failed to apply the 10 % ceiling laid down in Article 23(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and violated the principle of individual legal responsibility in not capping the fine to be issued for this period at 10 % of the turnover attributable to Mr. Schümann, who, according to the applicants ultimately controlled the company which was directly involved in the infringement.
   Finally, the applicants claim that the Commission erred in not granting full immunity to Sasol with regards to certain parts of the fine for which the Commission primarily relied on evidence voluntarily provided by Sasol as part of its cooperation with the Commission.

      (1)  Unless otherwise specified, refers to companies of the Sasol group allegedly involved in the cartel.

      (2)  Partner of the joint venture Schümann Sasol International AG, together with Sasol Ltd which indirectly acquired two thirds of Hans-Otto Schümann GmbH & Co KG.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case C-399/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany (Appeals — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Access to the documents of the European institutions — Documents relating to the trade negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India — Full access — Refusal)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/5

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 4 June 2015 — Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory v European Commission, Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-399/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Access to the documents of the European institutions - Documents relating to the trade negotiations between the European Union and the Republic of India - Full access - Refusal))
   (2015/C 236/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory (represented by: S. Crosby, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and I. Zervas, acting as Agents)
   Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Stichting Corporate Europe Observatory to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: Case C-95/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 21 January 2000 in the case of O'Neill Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o.

text:
C 149/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      27.5.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vergabekon-                  the case of Roquette Frères SA v Directeur-Général de la
trollsenat (Austria) by order of that tribunal of 17 Februa-           Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des
ry 2000 in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure Kranken-                 Fraudes on the following questions:
haustechnik PlanungsgesmbH against Magistrat der Stadt
         Wien — Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbund                         (1) Having regard to the fundamental rights recognised by the
                                                                           Community legal order and to Article 8 of the European
                          (Case C-92/00)                                   Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, must
                                                                           the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                           Communities in Hoechst of 21 September 1989 be inter-
                         (2000/C 149/42)                                   preted to mean that the national court, which has the
                                                                           power in national law to order entry into premises and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     seizures by agents of the Administration in the area of
European Communities by order of the Vergabekontrollsenat                  competition, cannot refuse to grant the authorisation
(Public-Procurement Review Chamber) of 17 February 2000,                   requested when it considers that the information or
received at the Court Registry on 10 March 2000, for a                     evidence put before it and alleged to give rise to a
preliminary ruling in the case of HI Hospital Ingenieure                   suspicion of anti-competitive practices on the part of the
Krankenhaustechnik PlanungsgesmbH v Magistrat der Stadt                    undertakings mentioned in the Commission’s decision to
Wien — Wiener Krankenanstaltenverbund (Public Authority                    investigate are not sufficient to warrant such a measure or
of the City of Vienna — Vienna Associated Hospitals) on the                when, as in the present case, no information or evidence
following questions:                                                       has been put before it?
1. Does Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1) (directive         (2) In the event that the Court of Justice refuses to recognise
    on remedies) require the decision of a contracting authority           that the Commission is required to put before the national
    to cancel the procedure for the award of a contract for                court the evidence or information it has which gives rise
    services to be reviewable in review proceedings leading, if            to a suspicion of anti-competitive practices, having regard
    appropriate, to its being set aside?                                   to the above fundamental rights, is that court none the less
                                                                           empowered to refuse the application for entry to premises
2. If Question 1 is answered affirmatively, is there any                   and seizure of evidence if it considers that the Commission
    provision of Directive 89/665 or of Directive 92/50/EEC (2)            decision does not state sufficient reasons, as in the present
    which precludes a review limited to examination of the                 case, and does not allow it to ascertain in practice whether
    issue whether cancellation of the award procedure was                  the application before it is well-founded, thereby making
    arbitrary or a sham?                                                   it impossible for it to carry out the review required by its
                                                                           national constitutional law?
3. If Question 1 is answered affirmatively, which is the
    relevant moment in time for assessing whether the decision
    of the contracting authority to cancel the award procedure
    is lawful?
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
(2) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
                                                                       Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 21 January 2000 in the
                                                                                case of O’Neill Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o.
                                                                                (Case C-95/00)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de                                            (2000/C 149/44)
Cassation (French Court of Appeal) by judgment of that
court of 7 March 2000 in the case of Roquette Frères SA
v Directeur-Général de la Concurrence, de la Consomma-                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
tion et de la Répression des Fraudes (Director-General for             European Communities by order of 21 January 2000 from
Competition, Consumer Affairs and the Elimination of                   the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg)
                              Fraud)                                   (Austria), which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       13 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of O’Neill
                                                                       Incorporated v JOMO s.r.o. on the following question:
                          (Case C-94/00)
                                                                       On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council
                         (2000/C 149/43)                               Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying
                                                                       down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de Cas-                 counterfeit and pirated goods (Official Journal of the European
sation of 7 March 2000, which was received at the Court                Communities L 341 of 30 December 1994), as amended by
Registry on 13 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in                 Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 (1) of 25 January 1999,
 ---pagebreak--- 27.5.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 149/25
also applicable to situations in which goods of the type                Action brought on 15 March 2000 by the Commission of
specified therein are, in the course of transit between two             the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
countries not belonging to the European Community, tempor-
arily detained by the customs authorities in a Member State on
the basis of that regulation, at the request of a holder of rights                                (Case C-98/00)
who claims that his rights have been infringed and whose
undertaking has its registered office in a non-member country,
but whose mark is registered in a Member State of the                                            (2000/C 149/46)
European Community?
(1) OJ 1999 L 27, p. 1.                                                 An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice on 7 March 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities, represented by Richard Wain-
                                                                        wright, Principal Legal Adviser, of its Legal Service, and
                                                                        Panayiotis Panayiotopoulos, a national civil service Expert on
                                                                        secondment to the Legal Service, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of
                                                                        the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof by order of that court of 15 February 2000                  The Commission of the European Communities claims that
in the case of Rudolf Gabriel against Schlank & Schick                  the Court should:
                             GmbH
                         (Case C-96/00)                                 — declare that, by failing to adopt or, in the alternative,
                                                                            to communicate to the Commission, within the period
                                                                            prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
                        (2000/C 149/45)                                     visions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                            92/13/EEC (1) of 25 February 1992 coordinating the laws,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof                   application of Community rules on the procurement
(Supreme Court, Austria) of 15 February 2000, received at the               procedures of entities operating in the water, energy,
Court Registry on 13 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in                transport and telecommunications sectors, the Hellenic
the case of Rudolf Gabriel v Schlank & Schick GmbH on the                   Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
following questions:                                                        and that directive.
For the purposes of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction             — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
Matters of 27 September 1968, does the provision in Para-
graph 5j of the Austrian Consumer Protection Law (Konsumen-
tenschutzgesetz (KSchG), BGBl 1979/140, in the version of
Art I, para. 2 of the Austrian Distance Selling Law (Fernabsatz-        Pleas in law and main arguments
Gesetz), BGBl I 1999/185), which entitles certain consumers
to claim from undertakings in the courts prizes ostensibly won
by them where the undertakings send (or have sent) them                 The binding nature of the third paragraph of Articles 249 and
prize notifications or other similar communications worded              10 EC (ex Articles 189 and 5 of the EC Treaty) requires
so as to give the impression that they have won a particular            Member States to take the measures necessary to transpose
prize, constitute:                                                      directives into their legal system before the expiry of the period
                                                                        prescribed for that purpose and to notify those measures to
(1) a contractual claim under Article 13(3);                            the Commission immediately. When the relevant time-limit
                                                                        expired on 1 January 1998 the Hellenic Republic had not
     or                                                                 notified the Commission of measures transposing the directive
                                                                        in question into national law.
(2) a contractual claim under Article 5(1);
     or
                                                                        (1) OJ L 76 of 23.3.1992, p. 14.
(3) a claim in respect of a tort, delict or quasi-delict under
     Article 5(3)


title: Case C-57/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko Efeteio (Three-member Chamber C) Athens by order of that court of 26 October 2000 in the case of Makedoniko Metro v Greek State

text:
19.5.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 150/9
1.   In determining whether a three-dimensional trade mark               Appeal brought on 19 February 2001 by Chronopost SA
     which depicts the shape of a product has distinctive                against the judgment delivered on 14 December 2000 by
     character within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the              the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court
     above directive is there a stricter test for distinctive            of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
     character than in the case of other forms of trade marks?           T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express (UFEX),
                                                                         DHL International, Federal Express International (France)
                                                                         and CRIE and the Commission of the European Communi-
2.   In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which depict           ties, supported by the French Republic, Chronopost SA
     the shape of the product, does Article 3(1)(c) of the                                          and La Poste
     Directive have any significance independently of
     Article 3(1)(e)? If so, when considering Article 3(1)(c) —
     or alternatively Article 3(1)(e) — must regard be had to                                     (Case C-83/01 P)
     the interest of the trade in having the shape of the product
     available for use, so that registration is, at least in                                      (2001/C 150/18)
     principle, ruled out and is possible as a rule only in the
     case of trade marks which meet the requirements of
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 December
     Article 3(3), first sentence, of the directive?
                                                                         2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                         T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express (UFEX), DHL
(1) OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1.                                                  International, Federal Express International (France) and CRIE
                                                                         and the Commission of the European Communities, supported
                                                                         by the French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste, was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties on 19 February 2001 by Chronopost SA, represented by
                                                                         V. Bouaziz Torron and D. Berlin, Avocats, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     quash the decision of the Court of First Instance of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko                           14 December 2000 in so far as it annuls Article 1 of
Efeteio (Three-member Chamber C) Athens by order of                            Decision 98/365/EC on the ground that the Commission
that court of 26 October 2000 in the case of Makedoniko                        should have considered whether, on account of La Poste’s
                       Metro v Greek State                                     reserved rights, the charges applied by that undertaking
                                                                               for services to its subsidiary were based on costs lower
                                                                               than those which a private operator with no reserved
                          (Case C-57/01)                                       rights would have had to bear;
                                                                         —     declare that there is no need to refer the case back to the
                         (2001/C 150/17)                                       Court of First Instance; and give final judgment in the
                                                                               matter, in accordance with the first paragraph of
                                                                               Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Dioikitiko Efeteio                  —     in those circumstances, and in so far as the Court of First
(Administrative Court of Appeal), Athens, of 26 October 2000                   Instance rejected all the other pleas in law raised by UFEX
which was received at the Court Registry on 9 February 2001,                   in support of its action for annulment, declare that the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Makedoniko Metro v                     action brought by UFEX contesting Decision 98/365/EC
Greek State on the following questions:                                        was unfounded;
                                                                         —     in so far as, under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure,
‘Must a change in the composition of an association participat-                the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if
ing in procedures for the award of a public-works contract,                    they have been applied for in the successful party’s
which occurs after submission of tenders and selection of the                  pleadings, and in so far as the pleadings submitted by
association as the provisional contractor and is tacitly accepted              UFEX before the Court of First Instance in support of its
by the awarding authority, be interpreted in such a way as to                  action for annulment must be rejected, UFEX and the
result in the loss of that association’s right to participate in the           other applicants must be regarded as having been unsuc-
procedure and, by extension, also of its right to, or interest in,             cessful in their pleadings, order UFEX and the other
the award of the contract for execution of the works? Is such                  applicants to pay the costs;
an interpretation consistent with the provisions and spirit of
Directives 93/37/EEC and 89/665/EEC?’                                    —     in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First
                                                                               Instance for judgment and order UFEX and the other
                                                                               applicants to bear the costs incurred by Chronopost in
                                                                               the proceedings both before the Court of First Instance
                                                                               and the Court of Justice.


title: Case T-161/17: Action brought on 11 March 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/38

         Action brought on 11 March 2017 — Le Pen v Parliament
   (Case T-161/17)
   (2017/C 151/49)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marine Le Pen (Saint-Cloud, France) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi and J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 6 January 2017, adopted pursuant to Articles 33, 43, 62, 67 and 68 of Decision 2009/C 159/01 of the Bureau of the European Parliament of 19 May and 9 July 2008‘concerning implementing measures for the Statute for Members of the European Parliament’, as amended, making a claim against the applicant for an amount of EUR 41 554 by way of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance and giving reasons for its recovery, and ordering the competent authorising officer, in cooperation with the accounting officer of that institution, to recover that amount in accordance with Article 68 of the implementing measures and Articles 66, 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;

               —

               annul Debit Note No 2017-22 of 11 January 2017 informing the applicant that a claim for EUR 41 554 has been made against her following the Secretary-General’s decision of 6 January 2017 ordering the recovery of sums unduly paid for parliamentary assistance in accordance with Article 68 of the implementing measures and Articles 78, 79 and 80 of the Financial Regulation;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs in their entirety;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay Ms Le Pen the sum of EUR 50 000 by way of compensation for the recoverable costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging defects affecting the procedural legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into five parts.

                           —

                           First part, alleging that the power to make financial decisions concerning Members rests with the Bureau of the European Parliament and not with the Secretary-General.

                           —

                           Second part, alleging that the Bureau of the European Parliament cannot alter the nature and scope of its powers. The Secretary-General has not provided evidence of any lawful delegation by the President of the Bureau of the Parliament of the power to adopt and notify the contested measures in order to settle financial issues concerning a Member.

                           —

                           Third part, alleging that the contested measures do not contain a sufficient statement of reasons, and that they are of an arbitrary nature.

                           —

                           Fourth part, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements.

                           —

                           Fifth part, alleging that the Secretary-General of the European Parliament did not personally examine the case-file.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging defects affecting the substantive legality of the contested measures. This plea is divided into six parts.

                           —

                           First part, alleging infringement of the principles of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

                           —

                           Second part, alleging that there are no facts to support the contested measures.

                           —

                           Third part, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by a misuse of powers.

                           —

                           Fourth part, alleging that the contested measures are vitiated by an abuse of process.

                           —

                           Fifth part, alleging that the contested measures are discriminatory and that there is fumus persecutionis.

                           —

                           Sixth part, alleging a lack of independence on the part of OLAF.


title: Case T-188/17: Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Coil Liner)

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/36

         Action brought on 21 March 2017 — Bernard Krone Holding v EUIPO (Coil Liner)
   (Case T-188/17)
   (2017/C 161/51)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Bernard Krone Holding SE & Co. KG (Spelle, Germany) (represented by: T. Weeg and K. Lüken, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘Coil Liner’ — Application for registration No 14 473 193

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 January 2017 in Case R 443/2016-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it dismisses the appeal;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-275/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 11 July 2002 in the case of Engin Ayaz against Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
C 261/2                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26.10.2002
3.     For each case assigned to a large Chamber, namely the            Sixth Chamber
Fifth and Sixth Chambers, to each of which seven judges are
attached, the five judges who are to sit shall be determined on         (President: Judge Puissochet)
the basis of a list drawn up for the judicial year comprising all       Judge Gulmann, Judge Macken, Judge da Cunha Rodrigues,
the judges of the Chamber, except the President, in the                 Judge Schintgen, Judge Skouris and Judge Colneric.
following order:
(a)   the judges of the small Chamber to which four judges are          Appointment of the First Advocate General
      attached, in order of seniority;
                                                                        At its meeting held on 1 October 2002, in accordance with
(b)   the judges of the other small Chamber, in the same order.         Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court of Justice
                                                                        appointed Advocate General J. Mischo as First Advocate
                                                                        General for a period of one year starting on 7 October 2002.
For each case, the large Chamber shall be composed of:
—     the President,
—     the Judge-Rapporteur,                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                        richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 11 July 2002 in
—     three judges appointed in order from the list; the starting-       the case of Engin Ayaz against Land Baden-Württemberg
      point on that list shall be moved down one name at each
      general meeting.                                                                          (Case C-275/02)
                                                                                (2002/C 261/02)
Any judges prevented from sitting shall be replaced in order
from the list. However, should the President of the large
Chamber be prevented from sitting, he must be replaced if
possible by the President of the small Chamber.                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                        Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 11 July 2002,
If the Court, or a Chamber, deems it appropriate to hear and            received at the Court Registry on 26 July 2002, for a
determine two or more cases together (whether or not they               preliminary ruling in the case of Engin Ayaz against Land
are formally joined), the composition of the bench shall be             Baden-Württemberg on the following question:
that determined for the first of the cases discussed at a general
meeting.                                                                Is a stepson aged under 21 years of a Turkish worker who is
                                                                        duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member
                                                                        State a member of the family within the meaning of the first
4.     For the period ending on 6 October 2003, the lists               paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
referred to above are as follows:                                       Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the
                                                                        Association?
Third Chamber
(President: Judge Puissochet)
Judge Gulmann, Judge Macken and Judge de Cunha Rodrigues.
                                                                        Action brought on 31 July 2002 by the Commission of
Fourth Chamber                                                                   the European Communities against Ireland
(President: Judge Timmermans)                                                                   (Case C-282/02)
Judge Edward, Judge La Pergola and Judge von Bahr.                                              (2002/C 261/03)
Fifth Chamber
                                                                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
(President: Judge Wathelet)                                             Justice of the European Communities on 31 July 2002 by the
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Judge Edward, Judge La Pergola, Judge von Bahr, Judge                   Michael Shotter, acting as agent, with an address for service in
Timmermans, Judge Jann and Judge Rosas.                                 Luxembourg.


13 . 4 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 108/ 13
      Removal from the register of Case T-444/93 ( )                       Removal from the register of Case T-107/95 ( )
                          ( 96/C 108/27                                                        ( 96/C 108 /30 )
                (Language of tbe case: Dutch)                                       (Language of tbe case: English)
By order of 13 February 1996 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               By order of 12 February 1996 the President of the First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
removal from the register of Case T-444/93 : Stichting               Communities ordered the removal from the register of
Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor het Glazenwassers- en                     Case T-l 07/95 : Benjamin Laurence Lay v . Council of
Schoonmaakbedrijf ( Fondation Bedrijfspensioenfonds du               the European Union and Commission of the European
Secteur des Entreprises de Lavage de Vitres et de Nettoyage )        Communities .
v . Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities .                                               (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 24 , 31 . 1 . 1992 .
      Removal from the register of Case T-355/94 ( 1 )                     Removal from the register of Case T-l 08/95 (')
                          ( 96/C 108/28 )                                                      ( 96/C 108 /31 )
              (Language of the case: English)                                       (Language of tbe case: English)
By order of 16 February 1 996 the President of the Third             By order of 12 February 1996 the President of the First
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
from the register of Case T-355/94 : Norsk Hydro A/S v .
                                                                     T-l 08/95 : Donald George Gage and David John Gage v.
Commission of the European Communities .
                                                                     Council of the European Union and Commission of the
(') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                   European Communities .
                                                                     (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
        Removal from the register of Case T-83/95 ( ] )
                          ( 96/C 108/29 )
               (Language of the case: English)                             Removal from the register of Case T-182/95 (')
                                                                                96/C 108/32 )
By order of 29 January 1996 the President of the Fifth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal                             (Language of the case: French)
from the register of Case T-83/95 : Associaçâo dos
Refinadores de Açucar Portugueses ( ARAP ), Alcantara                By order of 7 February 1996 the President of the Second
Refiniarias — Açúcares SA and RAR Refinarias de Açucar               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Reunidas SA v . Commission of the European                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Communities .
                                                                     T- 1 82/95 : Champing Qualité France v . Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities .
(>) OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .


title: Case C-95/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2007 — Ecotrade SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genoa 3

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2007 — Ecotrade SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genoa 3
   (Case C-95/07)
   (2007/C 117/05)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Genova
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ecotrade SpA

      Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genoa 3
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does a correct interpretation of Articles 17, 21(1) and 22 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes preclude national legislation (in particular Article 19 of DPR 633 of 26/10/72) that makes the exercise of the right to deduct value added tax, payable by a taxable person in the pursuit of his business activities, dependent on compliance with a (two-year) time limit and penalises non-compliance with annulment of that right? That question is asked with reference, in particular, to cases where the liability to VAT on the purchase of the goods or service stems from the application of the reverse charge procedure, which allows the authorities a longer period (of four years under Article 57 of DPR 633/72) in which to demand payment of the duty than the period allowed to the trader for deduction of the duty, on expiry of which the trader's right to such deduction lapses.

               2.

               Does it follow from a correct interpretation of Article 18(1)(d) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 that national legislation may not, in regulating the ‘formalities ’referred to in that provision by means of the reverse charge procedure governed by the combined provisions of Articles 17(3), 23 and 25 of DPR 633/72, make (solely to the detriment of the taxpayer) the exercise of the right to deduct permitted by Article 17 of the Directive conditional upon compliance with a time limit such as that laid down in Article 19 of DPR 633/72?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case T-97/16: Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Kasztantowicz v EUIPO — Gbb Group (GEOTEK)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/33

         Action brought on 29 February 2016 — Kasztantowicz v EUIPO — Gbb Group (GEOTEK)
   (Case T-97/16)
   (2016/C 145/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Martin Kasztantowicz (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Ronneburger, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gbb Group Ltd (Letchworth, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: The applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘GEOTEK’ — Application for registration No 5 772 975

      Proceedings before EUIPO: Revocation proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 December 2015 in Case R 3025/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and the decision of the Cancellation Division of EUIPO of 26 September 2014 (Cancellation Decision No 9014 C);

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Rules 57 and 65 of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Decision No EX-11-3 of the President of the Office.


title: Case T-330/05: Action brought on  2 September 2005  — Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/26

         Action brought on 2 September 2005 — Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM
   (Case T-330/05)
   (2005/C 296/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt GmbH (Griesheim, Germany) (represented by: P.A. Müller, lawyer)

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

      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: De Ceuster Meststoffen NV (Sint-Katelijne-Waver, Belgium)
   Forms of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in appeal proceedings No R0984/2004-1, dated 1 July 2005;

               —

               in the alternative, set aside and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in appeal proceedings No R0984/2004-1, dated 1 July 2005, in so far as ‘biological substances, namely preparations for conditioning, reconstructing and recultivating sewage or for use in sewage treatment plants’ are concerned.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘aqua terra’ for goods in Classes 1 and 3 — Registration No 1 480 243

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: De Ceuster Meststoffen NV

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘AQUATERRA’ for goods in Classes 1, 5 and 31

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholds the opposition which was restricted in relation to the goods in Class 1 and refusal to register all the goods in Class 1

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

      Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 due to an erroneous assessment of the likelihood of confusion of the two marks in opposition. Consideration was not taken of the individual goods and their similarity as required and a general evaluation was carried out instead.


title: Case T-263/14: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products and Others v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/38

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2015 — Hydro Aluminium Rolled Products and Others v Commission
   (Case T-263/14) (1)

   (2015/C 155/47)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 14.7.2014.


title: Case C-91/06: Action brought on  14 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/6

         Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
   (Case C-91/06)
   (2006/C 96/09)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment (1) or by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of that directive;

               2.

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2001/42 into national law expired on 21 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.


title: Case C-146/17 P: Appeal brought on 22 March 2017 by Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Gascogne S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 January 2017 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Gascogne v European Union

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/26

         Appeal brought on 22 March 2017 by Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Gascogne S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 10 January 2017 in Case T-577/14 Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH and Gascogne v European Union
   (Case C-146/17 P)
   (2017/C 151/33)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Gascogne Sack Deutschland GmbH, Gascogne S.A. (represented by: F. Puel and E. Durand, avocats)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union, represented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellants claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside in part the contested judgment, notified by e-Curia to the appellants’ legal advisers on 16 January 2017, by which the General Court, whilst recognising the infringement of the right to adjudication within a reasonable period in the cases which gave rise to the judgments of 16 November 2011, Group Gascogne v Commission (T-72/06) and Sachsa Verpackung v Commission (T-79/06) and the existence of material and non-material damage sustained by the applicants as a result of the infringement of the ‘reasonable period’ rule, ordered the Union to pay inadequate and incomplete compensation for the harm suffered;

               —

               give final judgment on the financial compensation for material and non-material damage sustained by the appellants in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, in accordance with the appellants’ requests;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the first ground of appeal, Gascogne claims that, by refusing to award compensation for the material damage sustained for a period prior to 30 May 2011, on the ground that it could not rule ultra petita, the General Court made a manifest error in law in the interpretation and application of that principle.
   By the second ground of appeal, Gascogne argues that, by deciding to take as the starting point of the material damage, for the purpose of calculating that damage, the point determined by Gascogne in reverse on the basis of an excessive period which it estimated at 30 months, but which the General Court, for its part, estimated at 20 months, and by thus compensating the material damage sustained by Gascogne over a period of six months, although the General Court expressly ruled that the material damage sustained consists in the payment of bank guarantee costs in the course of the period during which the reasonable time for adjudicating was exceeded (namely a period of 20 months), the General Court formally contradicted itself and did not give effect to its findings.
   By the third ground of appeal, Gascogne claims that, by applying different rules for calculating the material damage than those initially presented by the appellants, without the latter being able to give their opinion on the consequences that method of calculation may have, the General Court infringed the rights of defence.
   By the fourth ground of appeal, the appellants claim that, by finding that it could not award compensation for the non-material damage sustained, the amount of which was proportionally too high by comparison to the fine imposed by the European Commission, on the ground that, according to case-law, the judicature of the Union cannot call into question, in full or in part, the amount of the fine by reason of the failure to adjudicate within a reasonable period, the General Court erred in law in the interpretation and application of that case-law.
   By the fifth ground of appeal, the appellants claim that, by refusing to allow the request for compensation for non-material damage sustained, on the ground that, in the light of its scale, the award of the relief sought by the appellants would, in the present case, call into question the amount of the fine imposed on the latter, even though the provisions of Articles 256(1) and 340(2) TFEU seek specifically to enable any applicant who has sustained harm caused by the European institutions to obtain redress by bringing proceedings before the General Court, the General Court rendered redundant and infringed the provisions of Articles 256(1) and 340(2) TFEU, as well as the right to an effective remedy.
   By the sixth ground of appeal, the appellants claim that, by awarding the appellants EUR 5 000 compensation for the non-material damage sustained, although the Court, first, considered that compensation for non-material damage could not call into question, even in part, the amount of the fine imposed by the Commission, and, second, expressly recognised the existence of non-material damage sustained by the appellants, which it was appropriate to compensate in the light of the ‘extent of the failure to adjudicate within a reasonable period’ and the ‘the need to ensure that… the present action is effective’, the General Court formally contradicted itself.
   By the seventh ground of appeal, the appellants claim that, by ruling, without any supporting element, that, first, the finding that there has been a breach of the obligation to adjudicate within a reasonable time is, in the light of the object and gravity of that breach, sufficient to make good the reputational harm, and, second, compensation of EUR 5 000 is adequate reparation for the non-material damage sustained, the General Court failed in its duty to state reasons.


title: Case C-192/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — K. Tas-Hagen, R.A. Tas v Raadskamer WUBO van de Pensioen- en Uitkeringsraad (Benefit awarded to civilian war victims by a Member State — Condition of residence in the territory of that State at the time when the application for the benefit is submitted — Article 18(1) EC)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/10

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — K. Tas-Hagen, R.A. Tas v Raadskamer WUBO van de Pensioen- en Uitkeringsraad
   (Case C-192/05) (1)

   (Benefit awarded to civilian war victims by a Member State - Condition of residence in the territory of that State at the time when the application for the benefit is submitted - Article 18(1) EC)
   (2006/C 326/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Centrale Raad van Beroep
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: K. Tas-Hagen, R.A. Tas

      Defendant: Raadskamer WUBO van de Pensioen- en Uitkeringsraad
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Grant of a benefit by a Member State to civilian war victims — Benefit reserved for nationals of the Member State in question who are resident in that Member State at the time when the application is submitted — Whether compatible with Article 18 EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 18(1) EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it refuses to grant to one of its nationals a benefit for civilian war victims solely on the ground that, at the time at which the application was submitted, the person concerned was resident, not in the territory of that Member State, but in the territory of another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23. 7. 2005.


title: Case C-329/00: Action brought on 8 September 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
25.11.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 335/31
Action brought on 8 September 2000 by the Kingdom of                    —     Error by the Commission in the dates used in calculating
Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-                         the financial adjustment.
                                ties
                                                                        —     Failure to state the reasons on which the decision is
                                                                              based.
                         (Case C-329/00)
                                                                        (1) OJ L 61 of 10.3.1999, p. 37.
                         (2000/C 335/54)
                                                                        (2) OJ, English Special Edition 1970(I), p. 218.
                                                                        (3) OJ L 125 of 8.6.1995, p. 1.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 8 September 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
represented by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish
Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard E. Servais.
                                                                        Appeal brought on 11 September 2000 by Alsace Inter-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             national Car Service (AICS) against the judgment deliver-
                                                                        ed on 6 July 2000 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
                                                                        First Instance of the European Communities in Case
1.    Annul the Commission decision of 5 July 2000 excluding            T-139/99 between Alsace International Car Service and
      from Community financing certain expenditure incurred                                 the European Parliament
      by the Member States chargeable to the Guarantee Section
      of the EAGGF, in so far as it refers to compensatory aid
      for bananas in Spain, and                                                                  (Case C-330/00 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/55)
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 July 2000 by
                                                                        the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-139/99 between Alsace
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         International Car Service and the European Parliament was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 11 September 2000 by Alsace International Car Service,
—     Error by the Commission in including the expenses                 represented by Jean-Claude Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an
      incurred in the EAGGF year 1995 and breach of the                 address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Pierrot
      principles of the protection of legitimate expectations           Schiltz, 4 Rue Béatrix de Bourbon.
      and of legal certainty. The expenses incurred by Spain for
      the EAGGF year 1995 were cleared at the proper
      time through Commission Decision 1999/187/EC (1). The             The appellant claims that the Court should:
      separate payments did not include the payments made in
      respect of bananas (marketing year 1995) which must,              —     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 July
      therefore, be considered to have been cleared by common                 2000;
      consent. Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (2),
      which authorises the Commission to refuse financing for
      expenditure incurred within the 24 months preceding the           —     should the state of the proceedings so permit, rule upon
      date on which it communicates in writing the results of                 the application for annulment of the decision of 7 April
      its checks to the Member States concerned, was adopted                  1999 to reject AICS’s tender and hence also of the award
      by Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 (3), and is appli-                of the contract to the Cooperative Taxi 13, and upon
      cable only as from 16 October 1995 (EAGGF year 1996),                   the application for compensation of FRF 2 190 000,
      in accordance with Article 2(1) of Regulation 1287/95,                  reserving the right to perfect the ruling on the same basis
      and is not, therefore, applicable to payments made in the               on the day of delivery of judgment;
      financial year 1995. Moreover, the document which was
      the first communication to Spain of the result of the             —     order the Parliament to pay the costs.
      check made in the banana sector is dated 8 July 1997; the
      financial adjustments that might follow therefrom in
      accordance with Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70
      could not go back any earlier than 8 July 1995, when a            Pleas in law and main arguments
      large part of the expenditure for 1995 in respect of that
      year’s harvest had already been incurred.                         —     Manifest error of assessment in fact and in law:


title: Case T-572/08 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2009 — Commission v Traore (Appeal — Public service — Officials — Recruitment — Notice of vacancy — Appointment to the post of Head of Operations at the Commission Delegation in Tanzania — Determination of the level of the post to be filled — Principle of separation of the grade and the function)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/49

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2009 — Commission v Traore
   (Case T-572/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Public service - Officials - Recruitment - Notice of vacancy - Appointment to the post of Head of Operations at the Commission Delegation in Tanzania - Determination of the level of the post to be filled - Principle of separation of the grade and the function)
   2009/C 180/92
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, G. Berscheid and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Amadou Traore (Rhode-St-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: É. Boigelot, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the appellant: European Parliament (represented by: C. Burgos and K. Zejdová, Agents); Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and K. Zieleśkiewicz, Agents); and Court of Auditors of the European Communities (represented by T. Kennedy and J.-M. Stenier, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 13 November 2008 in Case F-90/07 Traore v Commission, seeking annulment of that judgment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 13 November 2008 in Case F-90/07 Traore v Commission in so far as it annuls the decision of the of the Director of Resources of the EuropeAid Co-operation Office of the Commission of 12 December 2006 rejecting Mr Amadou Traore's candidature for the post of Head of Operations at the Commission Delegation in Tanzania and the decision to appoint Mr S to that post;

               2.

               Dismisses the action brought by Mr Traore before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F 90/07.

               3.

               Orders Mr Traore and the Commission of the European Communities to pay their own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance and the appeal proceedings.

               4.

               Orders the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Court of Auditors of the European Communities to pay their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-91/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 February 2011 — Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH v Öko-Invest Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; Other party: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

text:
               11.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 173/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundespatentgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 February 2011 — Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH v Öko-Invest Verlagsgesellschaft mbH; Other party: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
   (Case C-91/11)
   2011/C 173/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundespatentgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer Versicherungskonzepte mbH

      Defendant: Öko-Invest Verlagsgesellschaft mbH

      Other party: Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt

      Question referred

   Is the ground for refusal under Article 3(1)(b) and/or (c) of Directive 2008/95/EG (1) also applicable to a word sign which consists of a letter sequence which is non-descriptive — when considered on its own — and a descriptive word combination, if the trade perceives the letter sequence as an abbreviation of the descriptive words because it reproduces their initial letters, and the trade mark as a whole can thus be construed as a combination of mutually explanatory descriptive indications or abbreviations?

      (1)  Directive 2008/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (Codified version) (Text with EEA relevance); OJ 2008 L 299, p. 25.