title: Case C-457/16 P: Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Global Steel Wire, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission

text:
               24.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 392/14

         Appeal brought on 12 August 2016 by Global Steel Wire, S.A. against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2016 in Joined Cases T-426/10 to T-429/16 and T-438/12 to T-441/12, Moreda-Riviere Trefilerías and Others v Commission
   (Case C-457/16 P)
   (2016/C 392/19)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Global Steel Wire, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz, A. Tresandi Blanco and V. Romero Algarra, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 2 June 2016 in Cases T-426/10 to T-429/10 and, in particular, in Case T-429/10, Global Steel Wire S.A. v Commission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred in both the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on the following thirteen grounds of appeal:

      On the imputation of the infringement, in relation to the additional indications:

               1.

               In the first place, the General Court distorted the facts and failed to state reasons in relation to the alleged existence of structural links between TQ and GSW prior to 1996 and erred in law in the legal characterisation of the facts relating to the persons liable for the infringement during the entire infringement period.

               2.

               In the second place, the General Court erred in law in assessing the evidence, in breach of its duties as regards judicial review and failed to state reasons and applied an incorrect legal standard when assessing the powers of the sole director as a legally relevant indication of the existence of a single economic unit.

               3.

               In the third place, the General Court erred in law in the legal characterisation and distorted the facts in relation to the perception of competitors.

               4.

               In the fourth place, the General Court erred in law in the legal characterisation of the facts in relation to the overlap of staff.

               5.

               In the fifth place, the General Court erred in law in the legal characterisation of the facts in relation to the division of AP production and sales activities between GSW and the companies owned by the latter.

               6.

               In the sixth place, the General Court erred in law in the legal characterisation of the facts relating to the alleged meeting.

      On the imputation of the infringement, in relation to the issue of corporate succession:

               7.

               In the seventh place, the General Court erred in law by applying an incorrect legal standard when assessing the issue of corporate succession.

               8.

               In the eighth place, the General Court erred in law in the legal characterisation of the facts by holding both GSW and MRT liable for the conduct of Trenzas y Cables.

      On the imputation of the infringement, in relation to the assessment of the exercise of decisive influence and the evidence adduced in order to rebut the presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence:

               9.

               In the ninth place, the General Court applied an incorrect legal standard when assessing the exercise of decisive influence and failed to state reasons in relation to the imputation to GSW of TQ’s conduct during the entire infringement period.

               10.

               In the tenth place, the General Court applied an incorrect legal standard in determining the existence of actual exercise of decisive influence, erred in law in the assessment of the evidence adduced by the appellant in order to rebut the presumption of actual exercise of decisive influence over the companies owned by the latter and breached its duties as regards judicial review.

      On the inability to pay:

               11.

               In the eleventh place, the General Court committed an error of law consisting in the infringement of the rights of the defence by finding that, inasmuch as the Commission based its assessment of the appellant’s ability to pay on facts adduced and known by the latter, the Commission had respected the appellant’s right to be heard.

               12.

               In the twelfth place, in relation to the alleged possibility of the appellant obtaining external financing, the General Court erred in law in the assessment of the evidence by failing to exercise its powers of judicial review in accordance with law, erred in law by failing to fulfil its duty to state reasons and, lastly, erred in law by distorting the facts and the evidence relating to the possibility of the appellant obtaining external financing.

               13.

               In the thirteenth place, in relation to the alleged possibility for the appellant to have recourse to its shareholders, the General Court erred in law in assessing the evidence, and in any event, failed to fulfil its duty to exercise its powers of unlimited jurisdiction, by considering that the appellant had not provided the Commission with the information necessary to evaluate the assets of its shareholders and, in addition, the General Court failed to state reasons since it did not explain why the Deloitte reports relied on by the appellant lacked evidential value.


title: Case C-22/14 P: Appeal brought on 17 January 2014 by Three-N-Products Private Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 November 2013 in Case T-63/13 Three-N-Products Private Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/33

         Appeal brought on 17 January 2014 by Three-N-Products Private Ltd against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 7 November 2013 in Case T-63/13 Three-N-Products Private Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-22/14 P)
   2014/C 315/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (represented by: M. Thewes and T. Chevrier, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   By order of 2 July 2014, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal.


title: Case C-499/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas — Lithuania) — W, V v X (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 8 to 15 — Jurisdiction concerning maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Article 3(d) — Conflicting judgments given in the courts of different Member States — Child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother — The courts of the father’s Member State of residence without jurisdiction to vary a decision that has become final which they adopted earlier concerning the residence of the child, maintenance obligations and contact arrangements)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 February 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas — Lithuania) — W, V v X
   (Case C-499/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Articles 8 to 15 - Jurisdiction concerning maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 3(d) - Conflicting judgments given in the courts of different Member States - Child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother - The courts of the father’s Member State of residence without jurisdiction to vary a decision that has become final which they adopted earlier concerning the residence of the child, maintenance obligations and contact arrangements))
   (2017/C 112/10)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: W, V

      Defendant: X

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, and Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, the courts of the Member State which made a decision that has become final concerning parental responsibility and maintenance obligations with regard to a minor child no longer have jurisdiction to decide on an application for variation of the provisions ordered in that decision, inasmuch as the habitual residence of the child is in another Member State. It is the courts of the Member State of habitual residence that have jurisdiction to decide on that application.

      (1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015.


10.2.2001             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 45/17
       Removal from the register of Case C-440/99 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-332/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/34)                                                     (2001/C 45/37)
By order of 20 September 2000 the President of the Court of        By order of 4 October 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
from the register of Case C-440/99: Commission of the              ordered the removal from the register of Case C-332/99:
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.                  Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.                                          (1) OJ C 299 of 6.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-48/00 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-69/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/35)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/38)
By order of 25 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-48/00: Commission of the               Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Kingdom of Spain.                           from the register of Case C-69/00: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-290/98 (1)
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-197/98 (1)
                        (2001/C 45/36)
                                                                                (2001/C 45/39)
By order of 29 September 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal        By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-290/98: Commission of the              Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
European Communities v Republic of Austria.                        from the register of Case C-197/98: Commission of the
                                                                   European Communities, supported by United Kingdom of
(1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.                                         Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Hellenic Republic.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.


title: Case C-286/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 28 EC — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States — Requirement of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer — Exemption from the requirement to submit invoices or other documents showing transfer of ownership by previous owner(s))

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-286/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 28 EC - Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States - Requirement of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer - Exemption from the requirement to submit invoices or other documents showing transfer of ownership by previous owner(s))
   (2008/C 142/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: C. Schiltz, acting as Agent, and P. Kinsch, avocat)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 28 EC –National rule making the registration of second-hand vehicles which have previously been registered in another Member State subject to the submission of an excerpt from the entry on the commercial register of the vehicle's seller, whereas vehicles previously registered in Luxembourg are not subject to such a requirement — Obstacle to the free movement of goods — Lack of justification and proportionality
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by requiring, in accordance with the practice in issue, for the purposes of the registration of vehicles in Luxembourg, the submission of an excerpt from the commercial register or a comparable document proving that the seller of the vehicle is registered as a dealer, except for the dealers on the register of the Société Nationale de Contrôle Technique, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

               2.

               orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case C-699/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Brockenhurst College (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Supply of restaurant and entertainment services by an educational establishment to a limited public in return for consideration)

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 4 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) — United Kingdom) — Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v Brockenhurst College
   (Case C-699/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Exemptions - Supply of restaurant and entertainment services by an educational establishment to a limited public in return for consideration))
   (2017/C 213/09)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

      Defendant: Brockenhurst College

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 132(1)(i) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that activities carried out in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting in students of a higher education establishment supplying, for consideration and as part of their education, restaurant and entertainment services to third parties, may be regarded as supplies ‘closely related’ to the principal supply of education and accordingly be exempt from value added tax (VAT), provided that those services are essential to the students’ education and that their basic purpose is not to obtain additional income for that establishment by carrying out transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for VAT, which it is for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/39

         (2006/C 190/74)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 178, 29.7.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 165, 15.7.2006

      OJ C 154, 1.7.2006

      OJ C 143, 17.6.2006

      OJ C 131, 3.6.2006

      OJ C 121, 20.5.2006

      OJ C 108, 6.5.2006

   These texts are available on:

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

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


title: Case T-389/00: Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Campina Melkunie B.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.3.2001                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 95/15
Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Campina                            Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Vereniging Neder-
Melkunie B.V. against the Commission of the European                     landse Cementindustrie (VNC) against the Commission of
                            Communities                                                   the European Communities
                          (Case T-389/00)                                                         (Case T-2/01)
                           (2001/C 95/29)                                                        (2001/C 95/30)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                    (Language of the Case: Dutch)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 4 January 2001 by Vereniging
European Communities on 27 December 2000 by Campina                      Nederlandse Cementindustrie (VNC), established at ’s-Herto-
Melkunie B.V., established at Rosmalen (Netherlands), rep-               genbosch (Netherlands), represented by M.B.W. Biesheuvel,
resented by Y. Van Gerven, F.P. Louis and R. Van der Vlies, of           T.M. Snoep and R. Wesseling, of The Hague Bar, with an
Messrs Stibbe Simont Monahan Duhot, lawyers, Brussels, with              address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                  M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.
C. Medernach, of Messrs Arendt & Medernach, lawyers,
8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     annul the Commission’s decision of 23 November 2000
                                                                               refusing to pay VNC interest on the fine improperly
                                                                               imposed on it;
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 18 October 2000
      refusing access to the correspondence between the Com-
      mission and the Belgian authorities, originating from the          —     order the Commission to pay to VNC interest at the rate
      Commission, and to the documents exchanged and the                       of 8,75 %, or at least at an appropriate rate, on
      minutes of meetings with the Belgian authorities or any                  100 000 euro for the period from 3 May 1995 to
      other party concerned, regarding the dioxin crisis during                23 November 2000, together with interest at the rate of
      the period from 3 June to 9 July 1999;                                   6,23 % on that sum for the period from 23 November
                                                                               2000 until payment of the interest by the Commission to
                                                                               VNC;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Infringement of Decision 94/90 and of Article 253 EC
                                                                         By judgment of 15 March 2000, the Court of First Instance
                                                                         annulled Commission Decision 94/815/EC in so far as that
      The reasons given for the contested decision do not show           decision imposed a fine on the applicant. On 23 November
      that the Commission carried out a separate examination             2000 the Commission transferred the amount of the fine paid
      of each of the documents requested so as to ascertain              by the applicant to a bank account maintained by the applicant,
      whether they related to its inspection and investigation           but not the interest demanded by the applicant.
      activities or its infringement procedure, or to the coming
      into existence of its Decisions 1999/368 of 4 June
      1999 and 1999/449 of 9 July 1999.                                  The applicant advances the following pleas in support of its
                                                                         application for annulment:
      The Commission has failed, contrary to Article 253 EC,
      to give separate reasons in respect of each individual             Infringement of Article 233 EC: by not paying interest on the
      document as to why the refusal to allow inspection is              amount of the fine, the Commission failed to take the necessary
      necessary in order to protect the public interest.                 measures to comply with the judgment.
—     Infringement of Decision 94/90 and breach of the                   Infringement of the general principles of proper adminis-
      principle of proportionality, inasmuch as the Commission           tration: in so far as the Commission differentiates between
      has not given partial access to the documents.                     undertakings which pay the fine and undertakings which
                                                                         instead provide a bank guarantee, it contravenes general
                                                                         principles of proper administration, namely the principle of
                                                                         equal treatment, the duty of care and the principle of
                                                                         proportionality.


title: Action brought on 30 March 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-101/95)

text:
24 . 6 . 95         |_EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 159/7
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, acting as
                                                                      Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           office of Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
Case C-79/95 ; the period prescribed for the transposition of
the Directive expired on 1 January 1993 .                             The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
                                                                            time limit all the measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                            with Council Directive 89/666/EEC ( l ) of 21 December
                                                                            1989 concerning disclosure requirements in respect of
Action brought on 24 March 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                            branches opened in a Member State by certain types of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                            company governed by the law of another State and
                              Germany                                       Council Directive 89/667/EEC ( 2 ) of the same date on
                        ( Case C-96/95 )                                    single-member private limited-liability companies, the
                          ( 95/C 159/ 13 )                                  Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            under the EC Treaty,
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      — declare, in the            alternative , that by failing to
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         communicate to the Commission the texts of the
Communities on 24 March 1 995 by the Commission of the
                                                                            provisions of national law transposing Directives
European Communities, represented by Pieter van Nuffel, a
                                                                            89/666/EEC and 89/667/EEC, pursuant to Article 16 of
member of the Commission's Legal Service, and Horstpeter                    Directive   89/666/EEC and Article        8 of Directive
Kreppel, a judge of the Arbeitsgericht ( Labour Court ) on
                                                                            89/667/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
secondment to the Commission's Legal Service, with an
                                                                            its obligations under the EC Treaty,
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios
Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .                                   — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
     time limit the legal and administrative provisions               in Case C-79/95 ; the time limit prescribed by the two
     necessary to implement Council Directive 90/365/EEC              Directives expired on 1 January 1992 .
     of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for employees
     and self-employed persons who have ceased their                  f 1 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 36 .
     occupational activity i 1 ) and Council Directive                ( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 40 .
     90/364/EEC of 28 June 1 990 on the right of residence ( 2 )
     or, in the alternative, by failing to communicate such
     provisions promptly to the Commission, the Federal
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
     under the EC Treaty;                                             Action brought on 30 March 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                                 Germany
     costs .
                                                                                ( Case C-101/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/ 15
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                brought before the Court of Justice of the European
30 June 1992 .                                                        Communities on 30 March 1995 by the Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter
(M OJ No L 180 , 13 . 7. 1990 , p . 28 .
                                                                      Borchardt, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
(2 ) OJ No L 180, 13 . 7. 1990, p . 26 .                              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                      Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 27 March 1995 by the Commission of                        time limit the measures necessary to comply with
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                             Council Directive 91 /628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on
                              Belgium                                       the protection of animals during transport and
                        ( Case C-98/95 )                                    amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91 /496/EEC ( J ),
                                                                            the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                          ( 95/C 159/14 )                                   obligations under the EC Treaty and under that
                                                                            Directive;
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on            2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
27 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                             costs .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 159/8            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24 . 6 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, a member of
                                                                      the Commission's Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case           address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                Kremlis , Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
1 January 1993 . Contrary to what the defendant maintains,
complete and correct implementation of the Directive was              The applicant claims that the Court should :
not made impossible by the fact that the additional
provisions envisaged in Article 13 of the Directive,                  déclaré that the Italian Republic:
concerning loading density and the feeding, watering and
rest intervals to be observed, remain outstanding.                    — by failing to communicate the necessary provisions by
                                                                            law, regulation or administrative action to comply with
(M OJ No L 340 , 11 . 12 . 1991 , p . 17 .                                  Council Directive 90/53 1 /EEC ( a ) of 17 September 1990
                                                                            on the procurement procedures of entities operating in
                                                                            the water, energy, transport and telecommunications
                                                                            sectors , or by failing to adopt the necessary measures to
                                                                            comply therewith, in breach of Article 37 ( 1 ) of that
Action brought on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of                        Directive, and
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                      — by failing to adopt by law, regulation or administrative
                              Germany
                                                                            action the necessary provisions to comply with Council
                       ( Case C-108/95 )                                    Directive 92/50/EEC ( 2 ) of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                          ( 95/C 159/16 )                                   coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                            service contracts, and in any event by failing to
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                       communicate such provisions, in breach of the first
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         subparagraph of Article 44 ( 1 ) of that Directive,
Communities on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
Borchardt, a member of the Commission's Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of            Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
Georgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
1 , declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed           C-79/95 ; the time limits for implementation expired on
     time limit the measures necessary to comply with                  1 July 1992 ( Directive 90/53 1 /EEC ) and 1 July 1993
     Commission Directive 93/ 17/EEC of 30 March 1993                 ( Directive 92/50/EEC ).
     determining Community grades of basic seed potatoes,
     together with the conditions and designations                    (•) OJ No L 297, 29 . 10 . 1990 , p . 1 .
     applicable to such grades ( ! ), the Federal Republic of         ( 2 ) OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     Treaty and under that Directive;
2 , order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs .
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the 0stre Landsret by
                                                                      decision of that court of 24 March 1995 in the case of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            Texaco A/S v. Port of Middelfart and Others
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case                                      ( Case C-1 14/95
C-79/95 ; the time limit for implementation expired on                                             ( 95/C 159/ 18
 1 June 1993 .
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(') OJ No L 106 , 30 . 4 . 1993 , p . 7.                              European Communities by a decision of the 0stre Landsret
                                                                       ( Eastern Regional Court ) of 24 March 1995 , which was
                                                                      received at the Court Registry on 3 April 1995 , for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of Texaco A/S v. Port of
                                                                      Middelfart and Others on the following questions:
Action brought on 31 March 1995 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                1 . Must the compatibility with Community law of a 40 %
                        ( Case C-1 13/95 )
                                                                             surcharge on a general goods duty, which is levied by a
                                                                             Member State when goods are imported by ship from
                           ( 95/C 159/17)                                    another Member State, be assessed in the light of:
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                    (A ) — Articles 9 to 13 of the EC Treaty, if necessary in
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                                    conjunction with Articles 18 to 29 and Council
31 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987


title: Case C-437/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc. (Appeal — EU trade mark — Figurative mark containing the word element ‘deluxe’ — Refusal of registration by the examiner)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc.
   (Case C-437/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element ‘deluxe’ - Refusal of registration by the examiner))
   (2017/C 239/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc. (represented by: L. Gellman, advocate, and M. Esteve Sanz, abogada)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 June 2015, Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (deluxe) (T-222/14, not published, EU:T:2015:364);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.


               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/1

         2010/C 80/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 63, 13.3.2010

      Past publications

      OJ C 51, 27.2.2010

      OJ C 37, 13.2.2010

      OJ C 24, 30.1.2010

      OJ C 11, 16.1.2010

      OJ C 312, 19.12.2009

      OJ C 297, 5.12.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Case T-368/12 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 June 2012 in Case F-63/11, Macchia v Commission

text:
               13.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/14

         Appeal brought on 17 August 2012 by the European Commission against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 June 2012 in Case F-63/11, Macchia v Commission
   (Case T-368/12 P)
   2012/C 311/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Luigi Macchia (Brussels, Belgium)

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 June 2012 in Case F-63/11 Macchia v Commission;

               —

               Dismiss the action brought by Mr Macchia in Case F-63/11;

               —

               Hold that each party shall bear its own costs of the present instance;

               —

               Order Mr Macchia to pay the costs incurred before the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition on ruling ultra petita, since the CST, firstly, extended the subject-matter of the dispute by annulling the Commission’s decision not only because it refuses any prolongation of Mr Macchia’s contract, but also because of its refusal to award him a new contract, while the petition in the application at first instance referred only to the annulment of the Commission’s decision not to renew his contract and, secondly, distorted the subject-matter of the dispute by holding that there was no need to examine the complaint of the applicant at first instance, Mr Macchia, that the ground for refusal based on the eight-year rule, despite the fact that that complaint lay at the heart of the action at first instance.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the adversarial principle, since the CST extended and distorted the subject-matter of the dispute without giving the Commission the opportunity of submitting observations in that regard.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the prohibition on ruling ultra vires in that, firstly, the CST annulled the Commission’s decision because the Commission failed to ascertain whether there was another post to which the person concerned could usefully be appointed and, secondly, it held that it has the power to ascertain whether the grounds given by the administration for refusing to renew a contract are not such as to call into question the criteria and conditions which have been laid down by the legislature in the Staff Regulations seeking to ensure that contractual staff are able to benefit, over time, from a certain continuity of employment, although that there is nothing in the provisions of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging distortion of the interest of the service and disregard of the case-law of the Court of Justice, firstly, by holding that the interest of the service must be reconciled with the duty of care and requires the possibility of giving the person concerned new duties to be examined and, secondly, by wrongly deducing from the case-law of the Court of Justice that the Commission cannot validly claim a lack of any interest of the service in renewing the contract of the person concerned, since Article 8 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union must be understood as guaranteeing a certain continuity of employment to staff holding a fixed-term contract.


title: Appeal brought on 31 March 1995 by the Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter against the judgment delivered on 23 January 1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-84/94 between the Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-107/95 P)

text:
  !. 7 . 95            I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 174/3
( f) Does the levying on an importer acting in good faith of                  claims commission was entered into in that place within
        the duties payable on goods in respect of which an                    the agent's geographical area .
        exporter has committed a customs offence, in which the
        importer was in no way involved , infringe the principles
        of justice, prohibition of enrichment at the expense of
        others, proportionality, legal certainty and good
        faith ?
                                                                         Appeal brought on 31 March 1995 by the Bundesverband
(g ) Since the customs authorities in the country of                     der Bilanzbuchhalter against the judgment delivered on
        exportation neglected to carry out a prior inspection of         23 January 1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
        the exporter 's warehouses before issuing the-movement           First Instance of the European Communities in Case
        certificates EUR.l , and since the Portuguese importer           T-84/94 between the Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter
        cannot remedy the situation arising from such                        and the Commission of the European Communities
        negligence , does that situation not constitute a case of                              ( Case C-107/95 P )
        force majeure for the importer, precluding the
                                                                                95 /C 174/05 )
        procedure for post-clearance recovery commenced
        against it ?
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 January
(') OJ No L 175 , 1 . 7. 1986 , p . 1 .
                                                                         1995 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
( 2 ) OJ No L .302 , 19 . 10 . 1992 , p . 1 .                            of the European Communities in Case T-84/94 between the
(') 1 1993 | ECR , p . 1-6381 .                                          Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter and the Commission
                                                                         of the European Communities was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 1 March
                                                                         1995 by the Bundesverband der Bilanzbuchhalter,
                                                                         represented by Joachim A. Miiller, Rechtsanwalt, Munich,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                         of Arsene Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Polimeles
Protodikio , Athens , by judgment of that court of                       The appellant claims that the Court should :
30 November 1994 in the case of Georgios Kontogeorgas v.
                            Kartonpak AE                                 set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                          ( Case C-104/95 )                              23 January 1995 in Case T-84/94 (').
                            ( 95 /C 174/04 )
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Infringement of the provisions of the EC Treaty , in
European Communities by a judgment of the Polimeles                      particular Articles 5 , 59 , 86 and 90 ( 1 ) and ( 3 ), and
Protodikio ( Court of First Instance , several judges ), Athens ,        misinterpretation of Articles 155 and 169 of the EC Treaty .
of 30 November 1994 , which was received at the Court
                                                                         Contrary to the assumption made in the contested
Registry on 31 March 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the              judgment, an action against a refusal to bring proceedings
case of Georgios Kontogeorgas v. Kartonpak AE pending                    under Article 1 69 or Article 90 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty must in
before it on the following questions :                                   any event be admissible where it is pleaded that the refusal is
                                                                         based on a defective investigation into the facts or the
 1 . Where the commercial agent is responsible for a specific            assessment by the Commission in the case in point is reduced
      geographical area , is he entitled to commission on                to naught.
       transactions entered into without his involvement at any
       stage and irrespective of whether he himself had found            (') OJ No C 74 , 25 . 3 . 1995 , p . 11 .
       the customers in question, or is he so entitled only on
       transactions concluded in his area of activity as a result
       of his intervention with customers which he himself has
       found ?
2 . What is the meaning to be attached to the term                       Action brought on 10 April 1995 by the Federal Republic of
       'customer belonging ' to that area ? In particular where             Germany against the Council of the European Union
       the customer is a company whose seat is located in a                                       ( Case C-122/95 )
       different place from that in which its managerial and
                                                                                ( 95 /C 174/06 )
       commercial activity is carried on , does the word
       ' belonging' refer to the company's seat or to the place in
       which its commercial activity is actually carried on              An action against the Council of the European Union was
       and/or its works or other establishments are located ,            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
       where the transaction in respect of which commission is           Communities on 10 April 1995 by the Federal Republic of
       sought was to supply those works or establishments and            Germany, represented by Ernst Roder and Berndt Kloke,
       the relevant transaction in respect of which the agent            Federal Ministry of Economics, Bonn.


title: Case C-378/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Sicilia — Italy) — Raffinerie Mediterranee (ERG) SpA, Polimeri Europa SpA, Syndial SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero della Salute, Ministero Ambiente e Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero delle Infrastrutture, Ministero dei Trasporti, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Regione siciliana, Assessorato regionale Territorio ed Ambiente (Sicilia), Assessorato regionale Industria (Sicilia), Prefettura di Siracusa, Istituto superiore di Sanità, Commissario Delegato per Emergenza Rifiuti e Tutela Acque (Sicilia), Vice Commissario Delegato per Emergenza Rifiuti e Tutela Acque (Sicilia), Agenzia Protezione Ambiente e Servizi tecnici (APAT), Agenzia regionale Protezione Ambiente (ARPA Sicilia), Istituto centrale Ricerca scientifica e tecnologica applicata al Mare, Subcommissario per la Bonifica dei Siti contaminati, Provincia regionale di Siracusa, Consorzio ASI Sicilia orientale Zona Sud, Comune di Siracusa, Comune di Augusta, Comune di Melilli, Comune di Priolo Gargallo, Azienda Unità sanitaria locale No 8, Sviluppo Italia Aree Produttive SpA, Invitalia (Agenzia nazionale per l’attrazione degli investimenti e lo sviluppo d’impresa) SpA, formerly Sviluppo Italia SpA, ( Polluter pays principle — Directive 2004/35/EC — Environmental liability — Applicability ratione temporis — Pollution occurring before the date laid down for implementation of that directive and continuing after that date — National legislation imposing liability on a number of undertakings for the costs of remedying the damage connected with such pollution — Requirement for fault or negligence — Requirement for a causal link — Public works contracts)

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 March 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Sicilia — Italy) — Raffinerie Mediterranee (ERG) SpA, Polimeri Europa SpA, Syndial SpA v Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero della Salute, Ministero Ambiente e Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero delle Infrastrutture, Ministero dei Trasporti, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Regione siciliana, Assessorato regionale Territorio ed Ambiente (Sicilia), Assessorato regionale Industria (Sicilia), Prefettura di Siracusa, Istituto superiore di Sanità, Commissario Delegato per Emergenza Rifiuti e Tutela Acque (Sicilia), Vice Commissario Delegato per Emergenza Rifiuti e Tutela Acque (Sicilia), Agenzia Protezione Ambiente e Servizi tecnici (APAT), Agenzia regionale Protezione Ambiente (ARPA Sicilia), Istituto centrale Ricerca scientifica e tecnologica applicata al Mare, Subcommissario per la Bonifica dei Siti contaminati, Provincia regionale di Siracusa, Consorzio ASI Sicilia orientale Zona Sud, Comune di Siracusa, Comune di Augusta, Comune di Melilli, Comune di Priolo Gargallo, Azienda Unità sanitaria locale No 8, Sviluppo Italia Aree Produttive SpA, Invitalia (Agenzia nazionale per l’attrazione degli investimenti e lo sviluppo d’impresa) SpA, formerly Sviluppo Italia SpA,
   (Case C-378/08) (1)

   (‘Polluter pays’ principle - Directive 2004/35/EC - Environmental liability - Applicability ratione temporis - Pollution occurring before the date laid down for implementation of that directive and continuing after that date - National legislation imposing liability on a number of undertakings for the costs of remedying the damage connected with such pollution - Requirement for fault or negligence - Requirement for a causal link - Public works contracts)
   2010/C 113/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Sicilia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Raffinerie Mediterranee (ERG) SpA, Polimeri Europa SpA, Syndial SpA

      Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo economico, Ministero della Salute, Ministero Ambiente e Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, Ministero delle Infrastrutture, Ministero dei Trasporti, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri, Ministero dell’Interno, Regione siciliana, Assessorato regionale Territorio ed Ambiente (Sicilia), Assessorato regionale Industria (Sicilia), Prefettura di Siracusa, Istituto superiore di Sanità, Commissario Delegato per Emergenza Rifiuti e Tutela Acque (Sicilia), Vice Commissario Delegato per Emergenza Rifiuti e Tutela Acque (Sicilia), Agenzia Protezione Ambiente e Servizi tecnici (APAT), Agenzia regionale Protezione Ambiente (ARPA Sicilia), Istituto centrale Ricerca scientifica e tecnologica applicata al Mare, Subcommissario per la Bonifica dei Siti contaminati, Provincia regionale di Siracusa, Consorzio ASI Sicilia orientale Zona Sud, Comune di Siracusa, Comune di Augusta, Comune di Melilli, Comune di Priolo Gargallo, Azienda Unità sanitaria locale No8, Sviluppo Italia Aree Produttive SpA, Invitalia (Agenzia nazionale per l’attrazione degli investimenti e lo sviluppo d’impresa) SpA, formerly Sviluppo Italia SpA

      Intervenering parties: ENI Divisione Exploration and Production SpA, ENI SpA, Edison SpA

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Sicilia — Interpretation of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage (OJ 2004 L 142, p. 56) and the ‘polluter pays’ principle — National legislation which allows the authorities to require private undertakings to implement rehabilitation measures, irrespective of whether or not any investigation has been carried out to identify the party responsible for the pollution in question.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Where, in a situation entailing environmental pollution, the conditions for the application ratione temporis and/or ratione materiæ of Directive 2004/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage are not met, such a situation is governed by national law, in compliance with the rules of the Treaty, and without prejudice to other secondary legislation.
   Directive 2004/35 does not preclude national legislation which allows the competent authority acting within the framework of the directive to operate on the presumption, also in cases involving diffuse pollution, that there is a causal link between operators and the pollution found on account of the fact that the operators’ installations are located close to the polluted area. However, in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, in order for such a causal link thus to be presumed, that authority must have plausible evidence capable of justifying its presumption, such as the fact that the operator’s installation is located close to the pollution found and that there is a correlation between the pollutants identified and the substances used by the operator in connection with his activities.
   Articles 3(1), 4(5) and 11(2) of Directive 2004/35 must be interpreted as meaning that, when deciding to impose measures for remedying environmental damage on operators whose activities fall within Annex III to the directive, the competent authority is not required to establish fault, negligence or intent on the part of operators whose activities are held to be responsible for the environmental damage. On the other hand, that authority must, first, carry out a prior investigation into the origin of the pollution found, and it has a discretion as to the procedures, means to be employed and length of such an investigation. Second, the competent authority is required to establish, in accordance with national rules on evidence, a causal link between the activities of the operators at whom the remedial measures are directed and the pollution.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Action brought on 29 May 1998 by Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-85/98)

text:
C 234/34               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
The applicant seeks relief from the Court of First Instance           Action brought on 29 May 1998 by FeÂdeÂration
on the ground that in rejecting her complaint the                     Internationale de l'Automobile against the Commission of
Commission failed to properly investigate the question                                 the European Communities
whether her rights under Article 85 could be adequately                                      (Case T-85/98)
safeguarded by the national courts of the United Kingdom.
                                                                                (98/C 234/66)
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983
    on the application of Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty to
    categories of exclusive purchasing agreements (OJ L 173 of                       (Language of the case: English)
    30.6.1983, p. 5).
(2) OJ C 206 of 30.7.1993, p. 2.
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 29 May 1998
                                                                      by FeÂdeÂration Internationale de l'Automobile, represented
                                                                      by Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, Mark Hoskins, Craig
                                                                      Pouncey and Veronica Roberts, with an address for service
Action brought on 27 May 1998 by Frans Jacobs against                 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Baden, 7
       the Commission of the European Communities                     Place du TheÂaÃtre.
                         (Case T-82/98)
                          (98/C 234/65)                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      Ð declare the Commission decision adopted on or
                                                                          around 22 December 1997 to provide to members of
An action against the Commission of the European                          the press copies of the warning letters dated
Communities was brought before the Court of First                         19 December 1997 was unlawful and is therefore
Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 1998                       void; and
by Frans Jacobs, residing at Walshoutem (Belgium),
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, VeÂronique Leclercq,
Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise Parmentier, of the Brussels              Ð make an order for nominal damages in the sum of one
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                     hundred ECUs for non-pecuniary harm caused to the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson SaÁrl, 30 Rue de Cessange.                    applicant's reputation;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           Ð order that the Commission must make good the
                                                                          pecuniary loss suffered by the applicant as a result of
Ð annul the Commission's decision not to promote the                      the Commission's unlawful acts, namely, the leaking
     applicant to grade B 4 in the 1997 promotions                        of the warning letters to the press and the statements
     procedure;                                                           made to the press by Mr Van Miert;
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Ð order that the Commission should pay interest at the
                                                                          annual rate of 8 % as from the date of judgment in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       these proceedings;
In support of his claim, the applicant maintains, first, that         Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
the contested decision is vitiated by the complete absence
of any statement of reasons, contrary to Article 25 of the
Staff Regulations of officials.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
He further states that, although he has been eligible for             The applicant in the present case (the FIA) is an
promotion since 1 May 1997, no staff report or any other              association declared in conformity with the French law of
report concerning his conduct, efficiency and ability has             1 July 1901 and enjoying consultative status at the
been drawn up as required by Article 43 of the Staff                  Council of Europe and at the United Nations. It is an
Regulations. The applicant considers that, in the absence             international federation of 143 national automobile clubs,
of such a report, the defendant was unable to make any                automobile associations, touring clubs and national
lawful assessment, on the same basis, of the comparative              federations for motoring and motor sport, representing
merits of the applicant and of those of his colleagues who            113 countries and over 100 million motorists. Through its
were eligible for promotion to grade B 4, and that the                Sports Division and its affiliated National Sporting
contested decision therefore disregards Article 45 of the             Authorities, the FIA lays down rules accepted throughout
Staff Regulations and the principles of equal treatment               the world as governing all categories of international
and non-discrimination.                                               motor sport for vehicles with four or more wheels. These
                                                                      rules are contained in the International Sporting Code. In
                                                                      addition, the FIA has an economic interest in certain
 ---pagebreak--- 25.7.98              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 234/35
major motor sport championships held under its name,                       Action brought on 5 June 1998 by the International
including the Formula One Championship and the FIA                          Potash Company (IPC) against the Council of the
world Rally Championship.                                                                   European Union
                                                                                (Case T-87/98)
On 22 July 1994, the FIA notified its Statutes and                                            (98/C 234/67)
International Sporting Code to the Commission for
negative clearance or exemption under Article 85 of the
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Treaty. On 5 September 1997, the applicant and Formula
One Administration Limited (FOA) notified for the same
purpose certain agreements concerning the FIA Formula                 An action against the Council of the European Union was
One World Championship. Another agreement between                     brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
FIA and International Sportsworld Communications                      Communities on 5 June 1998 by the International Potash
Limited (ISC) was also notified, relating to the                      Company (IPC), represented by Jean-FrancËois Bellis and
commercialisation of all sound recordings and moving                  Richard Luff, with an address for service in Luxembourg
picture images pertaining to certain FIA Championships,               at the Chambers of A. F. Brausch, 8 Rue Zithe.
other than the Formula One Championship. After having
received these notifications, the Director-General of
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
competition sent to the applicant a letter and annex
containing a preliminary statement of the objections to the
FIA's rules and to the agreement governing the Formula                Ð annul Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 449/
One Championship. On the same date similar letters were                    98 of 23 February 1998 amending Regulation (EEC)
sent by the Director-General to FOA and ISC. The events                    No 3068/92 in respect of definitive anti-dumping
with which this application is concerned involve an illegal                duties on imports of potassium chloride originating in
course of conduct by the Commission after the sending of                   Belarus, Russia and Ukraine (OJ L 58 of 27.2.1998,
these three letters.                                                       p. 15) in so far as it imposes a specific duty on
                                                                           potassium chloride exported by the applicant; and
According to the applicants, the illegal course of conduct
of which complaint is made concerns:                                  Ð order the Council to pay the costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð the making of a series of highly prejudicial public
    statements, directly attributed to the Commissioner for
    competition, and widely reported in the press,                    The applicant is a Russian company which exports
    expressing the Commissioner's view that the FIA is                potassium chloride produced in Russia and Belarus by the
    guilty of the gravest infringements of EC competition             following production companies which are its
    rules, even though the FIA had not been given the                 shareholders: Production Amalgamation Belaruski', PLC
    opportunity to be heard and the Commission had not                Silinit' and PLC Uralaki'.
    made a decision on the merits;
                                                                      The present application is directed against the
Ð the disclosure to the press, in breach of the obligations           regulation (1) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
    of professional secrecy and confidentiality, by a                 imports of potassium chloride originating in Belarus,
    member of the Commission's staff of (inter alia)                  Russia and Ukraine.
    the abovementioned letter to the FIA from the
    Director-General of competition, describing alleged               By imposing an anti-dumping equal to a fixed amount in
    infringements of the EC competition rules, together               ECU per tonne or to the difference between a minimum
    with an annex to the letter, giving guidance on                   price and the net, free-at-Community-frontier price per
    changes considered necessary on the FIA's part (and               tonne, whichever is the higher, the Community institutions
    the equivalent letters sent to FOA and ISC in so far as           have infringed Article 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC)
    they relate to the FIA's activities); and                         No 384/96 (2) which provides that the amount of the anti-
                                                                      dumping duty is not to exceed the margin of dumping
                                                                      established but should be less than the margin if such
Ð the continuing failure by the Commission and its                    lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the
    servants to take any effective action to rectify the              Community industry.
    situation or mitigate the highly damaging and
    prejudicial effects of these acts upon the FIA.
                                                                      By adopting a specific duty in addition to the variable
                                                                      duty, the Community institutions have also infringed
The applicant submits that this way of acting by the                  Article 3b of the Treaty establishing the European
Commission is to be considered as an infringement of                  Community and the principle of proportionality since the
Articles 214 of the EC Treaty and 20(1) and (2) of                    measures go beyond what is necessary to obtain the
Regulation (EEC) 17/62, as well as of the principle of                objective pursued, namely the elimination of the dumping.
good administration.
                                                                      Finally, the Council has infringed Article 190 of the Treaty
                                                                      establishing the European Community by failing to


title: Case T-271/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Boudova and Others v Commission (Appeal — Public service — Officials — Former members of the auxiliary staff — Appointment — Classification in grade — Competition published before the entry in force of the new Staff Regulations — Reclassification by another institution of its officials — Refusal to reclassify — Principle of equal treatment — Action for annulment — Non-actionable measure — Confirmatory act — Absence of new and substantive facts — Absence of excusable error — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/63

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2009 — Boudova and Others v Commission
   (Case T-271/08) (1)

   (Appeal - Public service - Officials - Former members of the auxiliary staff - Appointment - Classification in grade - Competition published before the entry in force of the new Staff Regulations - Reclassification by another institution of its officials - Refusal to reclassify - Principle of equal treatment - Action for annulment - Non-actionable measure - Confirmatory act - Absence of new and substantive facts - Absence of excusable error - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 267/113
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Stanislava Boudova (Howald, Luxembourg); Iveta Adovica (Luxembourg, Luxembourg); Juraj Kuba (Konz, Germany); Heinrihs Puciriuss (Luxembourg); Agnieszka Strzelecka (Arlon, Belgium); Izabela Szyprowska (Berbourg, Luxembourg); Timea Tibai (Luxembourg); and Birute Vaituleviciene (Luxembourg) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 21 April 2008 in Case F-78/07 Boudova and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking the annulment of that order.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Stanislava Boudova, Iveta Adovica, Juraj Kuba, Heinrihs Puciriuss, Agnieszka Strzelecka, Izabela Szyprowska, Timea Tibai and Birute Vaituleviciene to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission in the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.


title: Case C-402/08: Action brought on 18 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/30

         Action brought on 18 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-402/08)
   (2008/C 285/49)
   Language of the case: Slovene
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by U. Wölker and V. Kovačič, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that the Republic of Slovenia, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage, has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               an order that the Republic of Slovenia should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for implementation of Directive 2004/35/CE expired on 30 April 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.


title: Case T-785/16: Order of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — BSH Electrodomesticos España v EUIPO — DKSH International (Ufesa) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark Ufesa — Amicable settlement — Acquisition by the applicant of the mark applied for — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/25

         Order of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — BSH Electrodomesticos España v EUIPO — DKSH International (Ufesa)
   (Case T-785/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark Ufesa - Amicable settlement - Acquisition by the applicant of the mark applied for - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 231/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BSH Electrodomesticos España, SA (Huarte-Pamplona, Spain) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: P. Duarte Guimarães and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: DKSH International Ltd. (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Johansson and J. Stock, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 July 2016 (Case R 1691/2015-1) concerning opposition proceedings between BSH Electrodomesticos España and DKSH International.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate in the action.

               2.

               BSH Electrodomesticos España, SA shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office.

               3.

               DKSH International Ltd. shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.


title: Case T-73/14: Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Red Bull v OHIM — Automobili Lamborghini (Representation of two bulls)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/38

         Action brought on 4 February 2014 — Red Bull v OHIM — Automobili Lamborghini (Representation of two bulls)
   (Case T-73/14)
   2014/C 102/59
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, J. Fuhrmann and A. Renck, lawyers, and I. Fowler, solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Automobili Lamborghini SpA (Sant’ Agata Bolognese, Italy)

      Form 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 (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2013 in Case R 1263/2012-1;

               —

               order the defendant and, in the event of the formal intervention, also the other party before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: Figurative mark representing two bulls for goods in Class 12 (Community trade mark No 3 629 342)

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

      Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: Automobili Lamborghini SpA

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: The application for revocation was granted

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-38/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 25 January 2016 — Compass Contract Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

text:
               21.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 25 January 2016 — Compass Contract Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-38/16)
   (2016/C 106/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Compass Contract Services Limited

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the UK’s different treatment of output tax Fleming claims (which could be made for periods ending before 4 December 1996) and input tax Fleming claims (which could be made for periods ending before 1 May 1997 — i.e. later than output tax Fleming claims) result in:

                           a)

                           a breach of the EU law principle of equal treatment; and/or

                           b)

                           a breach of the EU law principle of fiscal neutrality; and/or

                           c)

                           a breach of the EU law principle of effectiveness; and/or

                           d)

                           a breach of any other relevant EU law principle?

               2.

               If the answer to any of Question 1(a) to 1(d) is affirmative, how should output tax Fleming claims relating to the period from 4 December 1996 to 30 April 1997 be treated?


title: Case T-443/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) v Council

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/23

         Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) v Council
   (Case T-443/11)
   2011/C 298/43
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu, China) and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co. Ltd (Jiangsu, China) (represented by: V. Akritidis, Y. Melin and F. Crespo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 451/2011 of 6 May 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of coated fine paper originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 128, p. 1); and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on eight pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of an essential procedural requirement under the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic anti-dumping regulation (1), in that the Commission rejected the applicants’ claim for market economy treatment on the basis of the effect of this rejection on the applicants’ dumping margin.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of a second procedural requirement under the second subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, and breach of the fundamental principle of the rights of defence and observance of due process, as the Commission failed to forward certain material information to the anti-dumping advisory committee.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging manifest errors in the appreciation of the facts of the case, as well as a lack of sufficient reasoning, in breach of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, in rejecting the applicants’ claim for market economy treatment.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of sound administration, as well as of Articles 18(1) (3) and (6) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, as the investigation was handled in an unfair and partial way, while imposing an excessive burden of proof.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(2) of the basic anti-dumping regulation and lack of reasoning, in that the European institutions concerned conducted their investigation in such a way that it became more likely that, as a result of the fact-finding or evaluation process, they would determine that the EU industry is injured.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(1) and 9(4) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, in that Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 451/2011 set target profit margin that the EU industry never achieved in the past.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the decision to exclude web-fed rolls from the product concerned and the like product was based on manifest errors in the assessment of the facts of the case, and resulted in a breach of Article 3 (injury), Article 4(1) (Union industry) and Article 5(4) (standing) of the basic anti-dumping regulation.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of Article 3(2) and Article 3(7) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, in that there is no assessment in the contested regulation of whether the duty imposed does not go beyond what is necessary to offset the injury caused by the dumped imports.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)


title: Case T-368/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 1 February 2013 — Travetanche Injection v Commission (Application for interim measures — Dismissal of the main action — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/16

         Order of the President of the General Court of 1 February 2013 — Travetanche Injection v Commission
   (Case T-368/11 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Dismissal of the main action - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 86/26
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Travetanche Injection SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and R. Cana, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Manhaeve, Agents, assisted by K. Sawyer, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 366/2011 of 14 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards Annex XVII (Acrylamide)

      Operative part of the order

   There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for interim measures.