title: Case C-374/07 P: Order of the Court of 20 January 2009 — Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Non-contractual liability of the Commission — Certain and actual loss — Distortion of the clear sense of the facts and the evidence — Burden of proof)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/20

         Order of the Court of 20 January 2009 — Mebrom NV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-374/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability of the Commission - Certain and actual loss - Distortion of the clear sense of the facts and the evidence - Burden of proof)
   2009/C 141/35
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Mebrom NV (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: X. Lewis, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 22 May 2007 in Case T-198/05 Mebrom v Commission by which the Court dismissed as unfounded an action for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the appellant following the Commission’s failure to set up, for January and February 2005, a system allowing it to import methyl bromide into the European Union in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer (OJ 2000 L 244, p. 1).

      Operative part

   Το Δικαστήριο διατάσσει:

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mebrom NV shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 20.10.2007.


title: Case T-370/05: Action brought on  30 September 2005  — France v Commission

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/16

         Action brought on 30 September 2005 — France v Commission
   (Case T-370/05)
   (2005/C 315/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant(s): French Republic (Paris, France) (represented by: G. de Bergues and A.Colomb, Agents)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C (2005) 2756 final of 20 July 2005 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as it excludes from Community financing the sum of EUR 13 519 122,05 in respect of a correction relating to determination of the areas eligible for aid for restructuring and reconversion of vineyards for the 2001-2003 financial year;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision which is the subject-matter of these proceedings, the Commission made a decision on clearance of the applicant's accounts in the wine sector of an amount corresponding to the amount to be excluded from Community financing on account of, first, a correction for exceeding new planting rights and, secondly, a correction made by the Commission in respect of the areas declared eligible by France for reconversion/restructuring aid and the areas considered eligible for such aid by the Commission for the marketing years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Only the second part of the decision at issue, concerning the correction relating to the discrepancy in area, is challenged by the applicant.
   In support of its claims, the applicant relies on two pleas. By the first, the applicant claims that the Commission misapplied Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/99 (1) since it did not prove the existence of an infringement of the Community rules by the French Government regarding the calculation of aid for restructuring and reconversion of vineyards, nor the existence of harm allegedly caused to the Community budget by the calculation method chosen by the French Government.
   The second plea raised by the applicant alleged an insufficient statement of reasons, since the contested decision did not explain the rules which the Commission intended to be applied to the non-planted areas, capable of being taken into account in the calculation of aid, nor did it justify clearly application of a financial correction of 10 % to the amounts of aid for restructuring and reconversion of vineyards.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160 of 26.06.1999, p. 103.


title: Case T-716/15: Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Gallardo Blanco v EUIPO — Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit)) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU figurative mark consisting of the representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit) — Earlier EU and Spanish figurative marks — Relative grounds for refusal — Genuine use of the earlier marks — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 November 2016 — Gallardo Blanco v EUIPO — Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería (Representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit))
   (Case T-716/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark consisting of the representation of a branding iron (shape of an H-shaped horse bit) - Earlier EU and Spanish figurative marks - Relative grounds for refusal - Genuine use of the earlier marks - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 038/45)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Juan Gallardo Blanco (Los Barrios, Spain) (represented by: E. Estella Garbayo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain) (represented by: A. Bosch Döffert, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 September 2015 (Case R 1502/2014-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Expasa Agricultura y Ganadería and Mr Juan Gallardo Blanco.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Juan Gallardo Blanco to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.


title: Case T-335/15: Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Universal Protein Supplements v OHIM (Representation of a body builder)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/45

         Action brought on 23 June 2015 — Universal Protein Supplements v OHIM (Representation of a body builder)
   (Case T-335/15)
   (2015/C 279/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Universal Protein Supplements Corp. (New Brunswick, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark representing a body builder — Application for registration No 13 060 991

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2015 in Case R 2958/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case F-12/08: Action brought on 5 February 2008 — Nardin v Parliament

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/50

         Action brought on 5 February 2008 — Nardin v Parliament
   (Case F-12/08)
   (2008/C 171/99)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Thierry Nardin (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: V. Wiot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   First, annulment of the decision of the European Parliament of 2 April 2007 fixing the applicant's rights on taking up his appointment inasmuch as it did not grant him the expatriation allowance and, second, an order that the defendant pay the expatriation allowance and default interest and make good the non-material damage suffered by the applicant.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Parliament of 2 April 2007 fixing the applicant's rights on taking up his appointment inasmuch as it did not grant him the expatriation allowance;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the expatriation allowance corresponding to a monthly sum of 16 % of the total amount of basic salary plus household allowance and dependent child allowance paid to the applicant per month since April 2007 and for all the months following until payment in full;

               —

               Order payment of default interest on the damages awarded at 8 % per year since the respective dates on which the sums fell due until payment in full;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 or any other sum, including a higher one, to compensate for the non-material damage which he has suffered;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case F-62/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission (Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings — Failure to designate a new representative — Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/47

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 March 2015 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-62/13) (1)

   ((Exclusion of the representative of a party from the proceedings - Failure to designate a new representative - Applicant no longer responding to communications from the Tribunal - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 146/64)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: A., lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision to withhold the sum of EUR 500 and five further sums in the amount of EUR 504,67 from the applicant’s invalidity allowance for the months July to December 2012 respectively.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action in Case F-62/13 Marcuccio v Commission.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 352, 30.11.2013, p. 26.


title: Action brought on 15 December 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-457/98)

text:
C 71/4                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
     certification was annulled, this could only give rise to        on 15 December 1998 by the Commission of the
     the legitimate expectation on the part of the appellant         European Communities, represented by Dimitrios
     that the Commission would endorse the DAFSE's                   Goulousis, Legal Adviser, and Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
     certification                                                   Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                     office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                     Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð Misappraisal of the facts
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on        The Commission claims that the Court should:
    the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of
    the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 20.10.1983, p. 1).
(2) Case T-85/94 Branco v Commission [1995] ECR II-45.
                                                                     Ð declare that, by failing to bring into force and to
                                                                         communicate to the Commission within the time-limit
                                                                         laid down the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                         provisions necessary to comply fully with Council
                                                                         Directive 96/97/EC (1) of 20 December 1996 amending
                                                                         Directive 86/378/EEC on the implementation of the
                                                                         principle of equal treatment for men and women in
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen
                                                                         occupational social security schemes, the Hellenic
Käräjäoikeus by judgment of that court of 31 March 1998
                                                                         Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
in the case of Finnish State/Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets
                                                                         EC Treaty;
                            and Others
                        (Case C-455/98)
                         (1999/C 71/06)                              Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
European Communities by a judgment of the Tampereen
Käräjäoikeus (Tampere District Court) of 31 March 1998,
which was received at the Court Registry on 14 December
                                                                     The Member States are required by the binding character
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Finnish                of the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of
State/Tullihallitus v Kaupo Salumets and Others on the               the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose
following question:
                                                                     directives into national law before the expiry of the period
                                                                     laid down for that purpose and to communicate those
                                                                     measures immediately to the Commission. That period
Are the European Community tax directives Council                    expired on 1 July 1997 without the Hellenic Republic
Directive 92/12/EEC (1), Council Directive 92/83/EEC (2)             having communicated to the Commission the provisions
and Council Directive 77/388/EEC (3) and the customs                 transposing the directive at issue into national law.
code Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (4) to be
interpreted as meaning that the provisions concerning tax
liability and customs debts apply to the smuggling of                (1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 20.
liquor?
(1) OJ  L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ  L 316, 31.10.1992, p. 21.
(3) OJ  L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
(4) OJ  L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
                                                                     gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of
                                                                     26 November 1998 in the case of Sutterlüty Gesellschaft
                                                                     mbH & Co against the Vorarlberg Landesregierung,
                                                                     with the following parties joined in the proceedings: the
                                                                     town of Dornbirn, the municipality of Bludesch, the
Action brought on 15 December 1998 by the Commission                  municipality of Rankweil and the municipality of Lochau
of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                             Republic                                                       (Case C-460/98)
                        (Case C-457/98)                                                      (1999/C 71/08)
                         (1999/C 71/07)
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                  European Communities by order of the Verwaltungs-
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities              gerichtshof, Vienna (Higher Administrative Court, Vienna)


title: Case C-590/12: Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Winsen (Luhe) — Germany) — Andrea Merten v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG

text:
               16.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 184/22

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Winsen (Luhe) — Germany) — Andrea Merten v ERGO Lebensversicherung AG
   (Case C-590/12) (1)

   2014/C 184/32
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


title: Case C-284/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 June 2015 — Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), M v M, Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Caisse Auxiliaire de Paiement des Allocations de Chômage (CAPAC)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/22

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 10 June 2015 — Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), M v M, Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Caisse Auxiliaire de Paiement des Allocations de Chômage (CAPAC)
   (Case C-284/15)
   (2015/C 279/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour du travail de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), M

      Defendants: M, Office national de l’emploi (ONEm), Caisse Auxiliaire de Paiement des Allocations de Chômage (CAPAC)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 67(3) of [Council Regulation (EC) No 1408/71 (1) of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community] ... to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from refusing to aggregate periods of employment necessary to qualify for unemployment benefit to supplement income from part-time employment where that employment was not preceded by any period of insurance or of employment in that Member State?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the negative, is Article 67(3) of Regulation No 1408/71 compatible with, in particular:

                           —

                           Article 48 TFEU, in so far as the condition to which Article 67(3) makes the aggregation of periods of employment subject is likely to restrict the freedom of movement of workers and their access to certain part-time employment,

                           —

                           Article 45 TFEU, which entails ‘the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment’ and provides for the right for workers ‘to accept offers of employment actually made’ (including part-time employment) in other Member States, ‘to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose’ and to stay there ‘for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action’,

                           —

                           Article 15(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which states that ‘every citizen of the Union has the freedom to seek employment, to work, (...) in any Member State’?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998 (OJ 1998 L 209, p. 1) and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 with a view to extending them to cover special schemes for civil servants.


title: Case C-501/07 P: Appeal brought on 19 November 2007 by S.A.BA.R. SpA against the order made by the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) on 17 September 2007 in Case T-176/07 S.A.BA.R. SpA v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/4

         Appeal brought on 19 November 2007 by S.A.BA.R. SpA against the order made by the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) on 17 September 2007 in Case T-176/07 S.A.BA.R. SpA v Commission of the European Communities

   (Case C-501/07 P)
   (2008/C 37/05)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: S.A.BA.R. SpA (represented by: E. Coffrini and F. Tesauro, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul and/or amend in its entirety the order of the Court of First Instance at present under appeal, and rule as appropriate;

               —

               grant the forms of order already sought at first instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the Commission decision of 5 June 2002 (1)‘on State aid … in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding’, the income tax exemption scheme provided for by Article 3(70) of Law No 549/1995 and by Article 66(14) of Decree-Law No 331/1993, as converted and amended, in favour of joint-stock companies with majority public shareholdings and providing local public utilities was declared to constitute State aid incompatible with the common market. The Commission decision did not relate to specific companies but covered companies established within the terms of Article 22 of Law No 241/1990 with majority public shareholdings. The decision was for that reason not notified to any company (and was not notified to the appellant) as no individual addressees were specifically identified. The Italian State, by way of Legislative Decree No 10 of 15 February 2007, gave effect to the abovementioned decision, allocating the task of recovery to the revenue authorities. Accordingly, on 20 March 2007, the Guastalla revenue office sent to the appellant company the following payment demands: payment demand No 3796 of 15 March 2007 for the capital sum of EUR 1 912 128,47 plus interest of EUR 2 192 225; payment demand No 3799 of 15 March 2007 for the capital sum of EUR 815 406,94 plus interest of EUR 783 529; and payment demand No 3800 of 15 March 2007 for the capital sum of EUR 439 549,29 plus interest of EUR 712 588.
   The appellant company, however, is not a company with a majority public shareholding, but is, rather, entirely public. For that reason, ‘the Commission's findings and its decision’ cannot apply to it.
   The appellant has in-house responsibility for local public utilities in relation to the eight associated communes, and was established specifically for that purpose in accordance with the arrangements set out in the legislation.
   The appellant manages the public utilities under a private structure, within an essentially local context, without being able to influence free competition, which cannot exist as there is no market.
   A company with a wholly public shareholding is nothing other than an indirect body of the associated communes, which are the actual recipients of the fiscal aid with which the Commission takes issue.
   On objective and subjective grounds, therefore, the tax exemption granted to the appellant cannot be classified as unwarranted State aid at variance with the requirements of Article 87 EC.
   For the reasons outlined, an action was brought before the Court of First Instance against the abovementioned Commission decision. It was registered as Case T-176/07 and assigned to the Fourth Chamber. A decision in the case was given by way of an order of inadmissibility of the Court of First Instance of 17 September 2007 based on the ground of failure to comply with the time-limit laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, according to which the action for annulment ought to have been brought within two months of the publication of the contested measure, or of its notification to the appellant or, in the absence thereof, of the day on which it came to the knowledge of the latter, as the case may be, in accordance with Article 102(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
   It is submitted that that finding is without basis, also in the light of the judgments in Case 730/79 Philip Morris Holland
       (2), Case 323/82 Intermills
       (3), Case T-358/94 Air France
       (4), and, in particular, the judgment of the Third Chamber of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-346/03 and C-529/03 Atzeni and Others
       (5), for which reason it is requested in the present appeal that the order of the Court of First Instance be amended.
   The action before the Court of First Instance was brought immediately after the appellant company had become aware that it was one of the addressees of the Commission's decision, that is to say, when it was notified of the payment demands issued by the revenue office.
   The order of the Court of First Instance is also challenged on the ground that it gave effect to a misapplication of Article 225 EC.
   The application for annulment of the Commission decision is to be treated as inherently linked to the request that the appellant not be made subject to that decision. It is accordingly requested that the order made at first instance be amended, also in regard to the declared lack of competence ratione materiae on the part of the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21.

      (2)  [1980] ECR 2671.

      (3)  [1984] ECR 3809.

      (4)  [1996] ECR II-2109.

      (5)  [2006] ECR I-1875.


title: Case F-64/10: Action brought on 3 August 2010 — Mantzouratos v European Parliament

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/33

         Action brought on 3 August 2010 — Mantzouratos v European Parliament
   (Case F-64/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/51
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Andreas Mantzouratos (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the European Parliament not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2009 promotion exercise and the decisions to promote to that grade officials with less merit points than the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Parliament not to promote the applicant to grade AD 13 in the 2009 promotion exercise and the decisions to promote to that grade officials with less merit (points) than him;

               —

               Order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case C-369/04: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, mmO 2 plc, Orange 3G Ltd, T-Mobile (UK) Ltd, Vodafone Group Services Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable transactions — Definition of economic activity — Article 4(2) — Allocation of licences making it possible to use a defined part of the radio-frequency spectrum reserved for telecommunications services)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/3

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 26 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — United Kingdom) — Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, mmO2 plc, Orange 3G Ltd, T-Mobile (UK) Ltd, Vodafone Group Services Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
   (Case C-369/04) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Taxable transactions - Definition of ‘economic activity’ - Article 4(2) - Allocation of licences making it possible to use a defined part of the radio-frequency spectrum reserved for telecommunications services)
   (2007/C 199/05)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   VAT and Duties Tribunal, London
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hutchison 3G UK Ltd, mmO2 plc, Orange 3G Ltd, T-Mobile (UK) Ltd, Vodafone Group Services Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners of Customs and Excise
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, London — Interpretation of Article 4(1), (2) and (5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977, L 145, p. 1) — Definition of ‘economic activity’ — Activities or transactions carried out by a body governed by public law acting as a public authority — Allocation, by auction, of spectrum to mobile telephony operators
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 4(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that the issuing of licences, such as third generation mobile telecommunications licences known as ‘UMTS’, by auction by the national regulatory authority responsible for spectrum assignment of the rights to use telecommunications equipment does not constitute an economic activity within the meaning of that provision and, consequently, does not fall within the scope of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.


title: Case T-406/04: Action brought on 4 October 2004 by André Bonnet against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/50

         Action brought on 4 October 2004 by André Bonnet against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
   (Case T-406/04)
   (2004/C 300/96)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Court of Justice of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 October 2004 by André Bonnet, residing in Saint Pierre de Vassols (France), represented by Hervé de Lépinau, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions of 11 February 2004, 4 March 2004 and 2 July 2004, and also the decision appointing another person to the post which was to have been filled by the applicant;

               —

               hold that the recruitment of 4 February 2004 must take full effect as from 1 March 2004;

               —

               order the Court of Justice of the European Communities to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 100 000 for non-material damage and also the sum of EUR 5 000 a month with effect from 1 March until such time as the applicant actually takes up his duties;

               —

               in the alternative, if the decision of the Court of First Instance should not make it inevitable that the applicant take up his duties, order the Court of Justice to pay the applicant a total sum of EUR 260 000 plus interest at the statutory rate as from the date of the present application;

               —

               in any case, order the Court of Justice of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The pleas in law put forward by the applicant are exactly the same as those that he put forward in Case T-132/04 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 168 of 26 June 2004, p. 7.


title: Case C-533/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — TNT Express Nederland B.V. v AXA Versicherung AG (Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters — Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Article 71 — Conventions concluded by the Member States in relation to particular matters — Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR))

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/7

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 May 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands)) — TNT Express Nederland B.V. v AXA Versicherung AG
   (Case C-533/08) (1)

   (Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters - Jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Article 71 - Conventions concluded by the Member States in relation to particular matters - Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR))
   2010/C 179/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: TNT Express Nederland B.V.

      Respondent: AXA Versicherung AG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 71(1) and (2)(a) and (b), second subparagraph, of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Brussels I’) (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Relationship with the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road (CMR), signed at Geneva on 19 May 1956 — Lis pendens — Rules on concurrence

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 71 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as the main proceedings, the rules governing jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement that are laid down by a convention on a particular matter, such as the lis pendens rule set out in Article 31(2) of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, signed at Geneva on 19 May 1956, as amended by the Protocol signed at Geneva on 5 July 1978, and the rule relating to enforceability set out in Article 31(3) of that convention, apply provided that they are highly predictable, facilitate the sound administration of justice and enable the risk of concurrent proceedings to be minimised and that they ensure, under conditions at least as favourable as those provided for by the regulation, the free movement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and mutual trust in the administration of justice in the European Union (favor executionis).

               2.

               The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to interpret Article 31 of the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road, as amended.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case T-255/12: Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Vakili v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/18

         Order of the General Court of 12 December 2012 — Vakili v Council
   (Case T-255/12) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken against Iran in order to prevent nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Withdrawal from the list of persons concerned - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 46/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bahman Vakili (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Rodios, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Council Decision 2011/783/CFSP of 1 December 2011 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 71); Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1245/2001 of 1 December 2011 implementing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 on restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2011 L 319, p. 11) and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1),, insofar as those acts concern the applicant, and of the decision contained in the Council’s letter of 23 March 2012.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs incurred by Mr Bahman Vakili and bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: Case C-174/09: Action brought on 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/6

         Action brought on 14 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-174/09)
   2009/C 167/10
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Kaduczak and S. Schønberg, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary for compliance with Directive 2005/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 2005 establishing a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-using products, (1) and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Republic of Poland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period within which Directive 2005/32/EC had to be transposed expired on 11 August 2007. Up to the date on which the action was brought, the defendant failed to introduce all of the provisions necessary for transposition of the directive, and in any event failed to inform the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 191, p. 29.


title: Case T-619/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — Faita v EESC (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Psychological harassment — Lack of assistance and a breach of the duty of care — Error of law — Right of defence)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/51

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Faita v EESC
   (Case T-619/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Psychological harassment - Lack of assistance and a breach of the duty of care - Error of law - Right of defence))
   (2015/C 046/65)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Carla Faita (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: D. de Abreu Caldas, M. de Abreu Caldas and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo and L. Camarena Januzec, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Troncoso Ferrer and F. M. Hislaire, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 16 September 2013 in Faita v EESC (F-92/11, ECR — SC, EU:F:2013:130), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Carla Faita to bear her own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case T-192/13: Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Transworld Oil Computer Centrum and Others v Eurojust

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/30

         Action brought on 2 April 2013 — Transworld Oil Computer Centrum and Others v Eurojust
   (Case T-192/13)
   2013/C 171/57
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicants: Transworld Oil Computer Centrum BV (Berg en Dal, Netherlands); Transworld Payment Solutions Ltd (Bermuda); Transworld ICT Solutions Ltd (Bangalore, India); Transworld Oil USA, Inc. (Houston, United States of America); Bermuda First Curaçao Ltd (Bermuda); and Johannes Christiaan Martinus Augustinus Maria Deuss (Bermuda) (represented by: T. Barkhuysen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Eurojust

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Eurojust’s confirmatory decision of 2 February 2013;

               —

               direct Eurojust to adopt a new decision on the basis of the confirmatory application of 31 December 2012, taking account of the judgment of the General Court; and

               —

               order Eurojust to pay the costs incurred in connection with consideration of the present application and those incurred in connection with the confirmatory application.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging failure by Eurojust to examine all the legal grounds on which the applicants rely
               The application for information of 4 October 2012 and the confirmatory application for information of 31 December 2013 are based on different grounds, including Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 8(2), 41(2) and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2010 C 83, p. 389). Nevertheless the contested decision of Eurojust was based exclusively on Eurojust’s rules regarding access to documents. Eurojust erroneously disregarded the other grounds on which the applicants rely.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging lack of care in the taking of the confirmatory decision and an inadequate statement of reasons
               Eurojust refuses to provide the information requested, referring to the exceptions laid down in Article 4(1)(a) and (b) of its rules regarding access to documents. However, Eurojust does not explain in the contested decision, or does not sufficiently explain, why and to what extent those exceptions apply in the present case.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging misapplication of the ‘national investigation’ and ‘fight against serious crime’ exceptions provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of its rules regarding access to documents
               The applicants have a reasonable and justified suspicion that (a) prosecution authority/ies has/have acted unlawfully in the criminal (preliminary) investigation. With a view to further substantiating that suspicion they, inter alia, submitted an application for information to Eurojust. Eurojust states that the information requested cannot be provided because a judicial preliminary investigation is still underway. According to the applicants, Eurojust is relying on those exceptions erroneously and without adequate reasons.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging misapplication of the ‘privacy and integrity of the individuals’ exception provided for in Article 4(1)(b) of Eurojust’s rules regarding access to documents
               Eurojust has neither asserted nor established that the documents requested contain third parties’ personal data. Furthermore, the mere fact that a document contains personal data does not necessarily mean that the privacy or integrity of an individual is affected. Any statements that may have been made by officials that were not made in a personal capacity cannot justify the withholding of the information requested.
               In so far as the integrity and privacy of individuals are at issue, Eurojust ought to have considered whether and how the documents requested could have been supplied — if necessary in anonymised form or in part only. Eurojust also failed, erroneously, to do so.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging misapplication of the ‘fulfilment of the applicable rules on professional secrecy’ exception provided for in Article 4(1)(a) of Eurojust’s rules regarding access to documents
               Reliance on that exception is not justified. The applicants are unable to establish which confidentiality rules are supposed to be applicable here, and they doubt that confidentiality rules apply that would preclude provision of the documents requested.


title: Case T-280/17: Action brought on 9 May 2017 — GE.CO.P. v Commission

text:
               3.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/37

         Action brought on 9 May 2017 — GE.CO.P. v Commission
   (Case T-280/17)
   (2017/C 213/51)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: GE.CO.P. Generale Costruzioni e Progettazioni SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Naticchioni, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should, after declaring unlawful the adoption by the European Commission — Office for Infrastructure and Logistics, Luxembourg — of the decision of 7 March 2017 by which the applicant, GE.CO.P. SpA, was excluded for a period of two years from European tendering procedures and the measure was published, annul that decision and all of the acts which stem from it or are conditional upon it, including those of which the applicant is unaware, and order the Commission to pay the costs relating to the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested measure concerns the termination by the Commission of its own motion, on 5 August 2015, of the public works contract No 09bis/2012/OIL — Lot 1 concerning renovation works on two buildings, referred to as the ‘Foyer européen’ located in Luxembourg, awarded to GE.CO.P.
   In support of the action, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 8 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/1929 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 October 2015 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2015 L 286, p. 1), as well as infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
   The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision was not preceded by a proper adversarial procedure. The applicant claims that it was not informed of the commencement of the exclusion procedure and was therefore not in a position to defend itself in the context of the procedure and put forward arguments in its favour before the adjudicating body.
   Had the applicant been in a position to defend itself, it would have put forward arguments in its defence which would most likely have resulted in a change in the adjudicating body’s opinion on the matter and a different outcome to the overall proceedings, more favourable to GE.CO.P.


title: Case T-8/06: Action brought on  12 January 2006  — FAB Fernsehen aus Berlin v Commission

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/31

         Action brought on 12 January 2006 — FAB Fernsehen aus Berlin v Commission
   (Case T-8/06)
   (2006/C 86/62)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: FAB Fernsehen aus Berlin GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Böken, lawyer)

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

               —

               annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities (C(2005) 3903 final) of 9 November 2005 (State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg).

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 final of 9 November 2005 on the State aid for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg. In the contested decision the Commission stated that the aid granted to the commercial broadcasters participating in DVB-T was incompatible with the common market and ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recover from the beneficiaries, and thus also from the applicant, the aid which was unlawfully made available to them.
   In support of its action the applicant submits that the subsidy granted does not amount to State aid under Article 87(1) EC. Furthermore, there is no aid, since the conditions laid down in Article 86(2) EC are not met. The applicant also submits that the measure in dispute does not affect trade between Member States and, consequently, the contested decision is unlawful in that respect.
   In support of its action the applicant also submits that, if the subsidy were to be regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, it would be compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3) EC. In that regard, the applicant alleges that the defendant exceeded the discretion which it has when deciding whether a subsidy may be regarded as compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) and (d) EC.


title: Case C-35/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Payment of dividends — Corporation tax — Case C-446/04 — Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation — Interpretation of the judgment — Prevention of economic double taxation — Equivalence of the exemption and imputation methods — Meaning of ‘tax rates’ and ‘different levels of taxation’ — Dividends from third countries)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 November 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
   (Case C-35/11) (1)

   (Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Payment of dividends - Corporation tax - Case C-446/04 - Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation - Interpretation of the judgment - Prevention of economic double taxation - Equivalence of the exemption and imputation methods - Meaning of ‘tax rates’ and ‘different levels of taxation’ - Dividends from third countries)
   2013/C 9/13
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants: Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation

      Defendants: Commissioners of Inland Revenue, The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Interpretation of the Court’s judgment of 12 December 2006 in Case C-446/04 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation — Meaning of ‘tax rates’ and ‘different levels of taxation’ — Tax rate to be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the levels of taxation are the same for naturally-sourced and foreign-sourced dividends

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which applies the exemption method to nationally-sourced dividends and the imputation method to foreign-sourced dividends if it is established, first, that the tax credit to which the company receiving the dividends is entitled under the imputation method is equivalent to the amount of tax actually paid on the profits underlying the distributed dividends and, second, that the effective level of taxation of company profits in the Member State concerned is generally lower than the prescribed nominal rate of tax.

               2.

               The answers given by the Court to the second and fourth questions asked in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 12 December 2006 in Case C-446/04 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation also apply where:

                           —

                           the foreign corporation tax to which the profits underlying the distributed dividends have been subject was not or was not wholly paid by the non-resident company paying those dividends to the resident company, but was paid by a company resident in a Member State that is a direct or indirect subsidiary of the first company;

                           —

                           advance corporation tax has not been paid by the resident company which receives the dividends from a non-resident company, but was paid by its resident parent company under a group income election.

               3.

               European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that a parent company resident in a Member State, which in the context of a group taxation scheme, such as the group income election at issue in the main proceedings, has, in breach of the rules of European Union law, been compelled to pay advance corporation tax on the part of the profits from foreign-sourced dividends, may bring an action for repayment of that unduly levied tax in so far as it exceeds the additional corporation tax which the Member State in question was entitled to levy in order to make up for the lower nominal rate of tax to which the profits underlying the foreign-sourced dividends were subject compared with the nominal rate of tax applicable to the profits of the resident parent company.

               4.

               European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that a company that is resident in a Member State and has a shareholding in a company resident in a third country giving it definite influence over the decisions of the latter company and enabling it to determine its activities may rely upon Article 63 TFEU in order to call into question the consistency with that provision of legislation of that Member State which relates to the tax treatment of dividends originating in the third country and does not apply exclusively to situations in which the parent company exercises decisive influence over the company paying the dividends.

               5.

               The reply given by the Court to the third question asked in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation does not apply where the subsidiaries established in other Member States to which advance corporation tax could not be surrendered are not subject to tax in the Member State of the parent company.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case C-315/12: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Metro Cash & Carry Danmark ApS v Skatteministeriet (Excise duty — Directive 92/12/EEC — Articles 7 to 9 — Directive 2008/118/EC — Articles 32 to 34 — Intra-Community movement of products subject to excise — Regulation (EEC) No 3649/92 — Articles 1 and 4 — Simplified accompanying document — Copy 1 — ‘Cash & carry’ business — Products released for consumption in a Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State or products acquired by private individuals for their own use and transported by them — Spirits — No obligation on the supplier to check)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/18

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 July 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Højesteret — Denmark) — Metro Cash & Carry Danmark ApS v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-315/12) (1)

   (Excise duty - Directive 92/12/EEC - Articles 7 to 9 - Directive 2008/118/EC - Articles 32 to 34 - Intra-Community movement of products subject to excise - Regulation (EEC) No 3649/92 - Articles 1 and 4 - Simplified accompanying document - Copy 1 - ‘Cash & carry’ business - Products released for consumption in a Member State and held for commercial purposes in another Member State or products acquired by private individuals for their own use and transported by them - Spirits - No obligation on the supplier to check)
   2013/C 260/30
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Højesteret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Metro Cash & Carry Danmark ApS

      Respondent: Skatteministeriet

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Højesteret — Interpretation of Article 7(4) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), of Article 34(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12), and of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3649/92 of 17 December 1992 on a simplified accompanying document for the intra-Community movement of products subject to excise duty which have been released for consumption in the Member State of dispatch (OJ 1992 L 369, p. 17) — Excise duty — Goods acquired by private individuals for their own use — Whether or not an undertaking in a Member State is under an obligation to ensure that it receives copy 1 of the simplified accompanying document when it sells alcohol in its stores in that Member State to nationals of other Member States who make their purchases on presentation of a store card issued in the name of undertakings based in other Member States, in cases where the card holder has the alcoholic drinks supplied to him at the store in order that he can then transport them himself to the Member State in which he is resident

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 7 to 9 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992, and Articles 1 and 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3649/92 of 17 December 1992 on a simplified accompanying document for the intra-Community movement of products subject to excise duty which have been released for consumption in the Member State of dispatch, must be interpreted as meaning that a trader, such as the trader at issue in the main proceedings, is not required to check whether purchasers from other Member States intend to import products subject to excise duty into another Member State and, where relevant, whether such importation is for private or commercial use.

               2.

               Articles 32 to 34 of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as not substantially amending Articles 7 to 9 of Directive 92/12, as amended by Directive 92/108, in a manner which would warrant, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a different answer to the first question.

               3.

               Article 8 of Directive 92/12, as amended by Directive 92/108, must be interpreted as being capable of covering the purchase of products subject to excise duty in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings where those products are acquired by private individuals, for their own use and are transported by them, which is for the competent national authorities to check on a case-by-case basis.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 22 September 1998 in Case C-61/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Retten i Ålborg): Foreningen af danske Videogramdistributører, acting for Egmont Film A/S and Others v. Laserdisken (Copyright and related rights - Videodisc rental)

text:
7.11.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 340/1
                                                                 I
                                                           (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  the premiums granted to purchasers of leaf tobacco, the
                      (Fifth Chamber)                                derived intervention prices for baled tobacco, the reference
                                                                     qualities, the production areas and the guaranteed
                   of 17 September 1998                              maximum quantities and amending Regulation (EEC)
in Case C-372/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            No 1331/90.
the Pretura Circondariale di Caserta): Antonio Pontillo v.
                       Donatab Srl (1)                               (1) OJ C 40 of 8.2.1997.
(Common organisation of the markets Ð Raw tobacco Ð
System of prices and premiums Ð Validity of Council
               Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91)
                       (98/C 340/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                of 22 September 1998
                                                                     in Case C-61/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     Retten i lborg): Foreningen af danske Videogram-
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     distributùrer, acting for Egmont Film A/S and Others v.
                                                                                Laserdisken (1)
In Case C-372/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di                        (Copyright and related rights Ð Videodisc rental)
Caserta (Caserta Magistrates' Court) (Italy), for a                                           (98/C 340/02)
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Antonio Pontillo and Donatab Srl Ð on the                             (Language of the case: Danish)
validity of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91 of
13 June 1991 fixing, for the 1991 harvest, the norm and
intervention prices and the premiums granted to                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
purchasers of leaf tobacco, the derived intervention prices                   published in the European Court Reports)
for baled tobacco, the reference qualities, the production
areas and the guaranteed maximum quantities and                      In Case C-61/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
amending Regulation (EEC) No 1331/90 (OJ L 163 of                    of the EC Treaty from Retten i lborg (Court of First
26.6.1991, p. 13) Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber),                       Instance, lborg) (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, M.                the proceedings pending before that court between
Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),                    Foreningen af danske Videogramdistributùrer, acting for
D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; J. Mischo,             Egmont Film A/S, Buena Vista Home Entertainment,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for             Scanbox Danmark, Metronome Video, Polygram Records,
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September                  Nordisk Film Video, Irish Video, Warner Home Video and
1998, in which it has ruled:                                         Laserdisken, supported by: Sammenslutningen af Danske
                                                                     Filminstruktùrer, Michael Viuf Christiansen, Pioneer
Consideration of the questions submitted has disclosed no            Electronics Denmark A/S, Videoforhandler Ove Jensen Ð
factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council           on the interpretation of Articles 30, 36, 85 and 86 of the
Regulation (EEC) No 1738/91 of 13 June 1991 fixing, for              EC Treaty and of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of
the 1991 harvest, the norm and intervention prices and               19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and
 ---pagebreak--- C 340/2               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.11.98
on certain rights related to copyright in the field of             working conditions requires Member States to introduce
intellectual property (OJ L 346 of 27.11.1992, p. 61) Ð            into their national legal systems such measures as are
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,                  necessary to ensure judicial protection for workers whose
President, C. Gulmann, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen                employer, after the employment relationship has ended,
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho            refuses to provide references as a reaction to legal
de Almeida, J. L. Murray, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),           proceedings brought to enforce compliance with the
G. Hirsch, L. Sevón and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; A. La               principle of equal treatment within the meaning of that
Pergola, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                 directive.
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
22 September 1998, in which it has ruled:                          (1) OJ C 212 of 12.7.1997.
It is not contrary to Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty or to
Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on
rental right and lending right and on certain rights related
to copyright in the field of intellectual property for the
holder of an exclusive rental right to prohibit copies of a                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
film from being offered for rental in a Member State even
where the offering of those copies for rental has been                                   (Second Chamber)
authorised in the territory of another Member State.                                   of 24 September 1998
                                                                   in Case C-319/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.
                                                                   the éstre Landsret): Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH v.
                                                                                Skatteministeriet (1)
                                                                   (Tax on the consumption of manufactured tobacco Ð
                                                                   Directive 79/32/EEC Ð Cigarettes Ð Smoking tobacco Ð
                                                                   Concept Ð Non-contractual liability of a Member State
                                                                                for breach of Community law)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    of 22 September 1998                                                    (98/C 340/04)
in Case C-185/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Employment Appeal Tribunal, London): Belinda Jane                              (Language of the case: Danish)
            Coote v. Granada Hospitality Ltd (1)
(Council Directive 76/207/EEC Ð Refusal of an employer               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
to provide references for a former employee who was                          published in the European Court Reports)
                          dismissed)
                        (98/C 340/03)                              In Case C-319/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                   of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret (Danish Eastern
                                                                   Regional Court) (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                   Brinkmann Tabakfabriken GmbH and Skatteministeriet Ð
In Case C-185/97: reference to the Court under Article 177         on the interpretation of Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of the
of the EC Treaty from the Employment Appeal Tribunal,              Second Council Directive (79/32/EEC) of 18 December
London, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                1978 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the
pending before that tribunal between Belinda Jane Coote            consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ L 10 of
and Granada Hospitality Ltd Ð on the interpretation of             16.1.1979, p. 8), and of the principle of a State's non-
Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the             contractual liability for damage caused to individuals by a
implementation of the principle of equal treatment for             breach of Community law attributable to that State Ð the
men and women as regards access to employment,                     Court (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen,
vocational training and promotion, and working                     President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch
conditions (OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40) Ð the Court,              (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General;
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, H.               H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has
Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),               given a judgment on 24 September 1998, in which it has
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),             ruled:
J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G.
Hirsch, P. Jann and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; J. Mischo,
                                                                   1. Articles 3(1) and 4(1) of the Second Council Directive
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
                                                                        (79/32/EEC) of 18 December 1978 on taxes other
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of
22 September 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                        manufactured tobacco, in the version in force in May
                                                                        1990, are to be interpreted as meaning that rolls of
Article 6 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February                 tobacco wrapped in porous cellulose which have to be
1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal                    inserted into cigarette-paper tubes to be smoked must
treatment for men and women as regards access to                        be deemed to be smoking tobacco within the meaning
employment, vocational training and promotion, and                      of Article 4(1) of that directive.


title: Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA v QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Philip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen (C-403/08) and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08) (Satellite broadcasting — Broadcasting of football matches — Reception of the broadcast by means of satellite decoder cards — Satellite decoder cards lawfully placed on the market in one Member State and used in another Member State — Prohibition on marketing and use in a Member State — Visualisation of broadcasts in disregard of the exclusive rights granted — Copyright — Television broadcasting right — Exclusive licences to broadcast in a single Member State — Freedom to provide services — Article 56 TFEU — Competition — Article 101 TFEU — Restriction of competition by object — Protection of services based on conditional access — Illicit device — Directive 98/84/EC — Directive 2001/29/EC — Reproduction of works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen — Exception to the reproduction right — Communication of works to the public in public houses — Directive 93/83/EEC)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 4 October 2011 (references for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division, and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)) — Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA v QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Philip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen (C-403/08) and Karen Murphy v Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08)
   (Joined Cases C-403/08 and C-429/08) (1)

   (Satellite broadcasting - Broadcasting of football matches - Reception of the broadcast by means of satellite decoder cards - Satellite decoder cards lawfully placed on the market in one Member State and used in another Member State - Prohibition on marketing and use in a Member State - Visualisation of broadcasts in disregard of the exclusive rights granted - Copyright - Television broadcasting right - Exclusive licences to broadcast in a single Member State - Freedom to provide services - Article 56 TFEU - Competition - Article 101 TFEU - Restriction of competition by object - Protection of services based on conditional access - Illicit device - Directive 98/84/EC - Directive 2001/29/EC - Reproduction of works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen - Exception to the reproduction right - Communication of works to the public in public houses - Directive 93/83/EEC)
   2011/C 347/02
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

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

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimants/appellant: Football Association Premier League Ltd, NetMed Hellas SA, Multichoice Hellas SA (Case C-403/08), Karen Murphy (C-429/08)

      Defendants/respondent: QC Leisure, David Richardson, AV Station plc, Malcolm Chamberlain, Michael Madden, SR Leisure Ltd, Philip George Charles Houghton, Derek Owen (C-403/08), Media Protection Services Ltd (C-429/08)

      Re:

   References for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice, Chancery Division and Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) — Interpretation of Articles 28, 30, 49 and 81 EC, of Articles 2(a) and (e), 4(a) and 5 of Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access (OJ 1998 L 320, p. 54), of Articles 2, 3 and 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10, corrigendum at OJ 2002 L 6, p. 70), of Article 1(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p. 23), and of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable transmission (OJ 1993 L 248, p. 15) — Grant, in return for remuneration, of exclusive rights in respect of satellite broadcasting of football matches — Marketing, in the United Kingdom, of decoders lawfully placed on the market in another Member State, making it possible to screen such matches in breach of the exclusive rights granted

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               ‘Illicit device’ within the meaning of Article 2(e) of Directive 98/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 November 1998 on the legal protection of services based on, or consisting of, conditional access must be interpreted as not covering foreign decoding devices (devices which give access to the satellite broadcasting services of a broadcaster, are manufactured and marketed with that broadcaster’s authorisation, but are used, in disregard of its will, outside the geographical area for which they have been issued), foreign decoding devices procured or enabled by the provision of a false name and address or foreign decoding devices which have been used in breach of a contractual limitation permitting their use only for private purposes.

               2.

               Article 3(2) of Directive 98/84 does not preclude national legislation which prevents the use of foreign decoding devices, including those procured or enabled by the provision of a false name and address or those used in breach of a contractual limitation permitting their use only for private purposes, since such legislation does not fall within the field coordinated by that directive.

               3.

               On a proper construction of Article 56 TFEU:

                           —

                           that article precludes legislation of a Member State which makes it unlawful to import into and sell and use in that State foreign decoding devices which give access to an encrypted satellite broadcasting service from another Member State that includes subject-matter protected by the legislation of that first State;

                           —

                           this conclusion is affected neither by the fact that the foreign decoding device has been procured or enabled by the giving of a false identity and a false address, with the intention of circumventing the territorial restriction in question, nor by the fact that it is used for commercial purposes although it was restricted to private use.

               4.

               The clauses of an exclusive licence agreement concluded between a holder of intellectual property rights and a broadcaster constitute a restriction on competition prohibited by Article 101 TFEU where they oblige the broadcaster not to supply decoding devices enabling access to that right holder’s protected subject-matter with a view to their use outside the territory covered by that licence agreement.

               5.

               Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the reproduction right extends to transient fragments of the works within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen, provided that those fragments contain elements which are the expression of the authors’ own intellectual creation, and the unit composed of the fragments reproduced simultaneously must be examined in order to determine whether it contains such elements.

               6.

               Acts of reproduction such as those at issue in Case C-403/08, which are performed within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen, fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29 and may therefore be carried out without the authorisation of the copyright holders concerned.

               7.

               ‘Communication to the public’ within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as covering transmission of the broadcast works, via a television screen and speakers, to the customers present in a public house.

               8.

               Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission must be interpreted as not having a bearing on the lawfulness of the acts of reproduction performed within the memory of a satellite decoder and on a television screen.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.


title: Case C-436/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 August 2011 — Sandra Schüsslbauer, Martin Schüsslbauer, Maximilian Schüsslbauer v Iberia Lineas Aéreas de España SA

text:
               12.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 August 2011 — Sandra Schüsslbauer, Martin Schüsslbauer, Maximilian Schüsslbauer v Iberia Lineas Aéreas de España SA
   (Case C-436/11)
   2011/C 331/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Sandra Schüsslbauer, Martin Schüsslbauer, Maximilian Schüsslbauer

      Defendant: Iberia Lineas Aéreas de España SA

      Question referred

   Does a passenger have a right to compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) in the case where departure was delayed for a period of time less than the limits specified in Article 6(1) of that regulation, but arrival at the final destination was at least three hours later than the scheduled arrival time?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 May 2005 in Joined Cases T-111/01 and T-133/01, Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte (ZEMAG) GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Restructuring — Misuse of State aid — Recovery of aid — Article 88(2) EC — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 11 May 2005
   in Joined Cases T-111/01 and T-133/01, Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte (ZEMAG) GmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (State aid - Restructuring - Misuse of State aid - Recovery of aid - Article 88(2) EC - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999)
   (2005/C 171/21)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases T-111/01 and T-133/01, Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH, established in Haslbrücke (Germany), represented by P. von Woedtke, lawyer, and J. Riedemann as receiver of the company ZEMAG GmbH, in liquidation, established in Zeitz (Germany), represented by U. Vahlhaus, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg) application for annulment of Commission Decision 2001/673/EC of 28 March 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH & Co. Management KG, now Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, together with Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte GmbH, LandTechnik Schlüter GmbH, ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik GmbH, SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH, SKL Spezialapparatebau GmbH, Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH, Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH (OJ 2001 L 236, p. 3) the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.§ Westerdorf, President, M. Jaeger, P. Mengozzi, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and F. Dehousse, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, acting for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 May 2005, in which it:

               1

               Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision 2001/673/EC of 28 March 2001 on State aid implemented by Germany for EFBE Verwaltungs GmbH &Co. Management KG (now Lintra Beteiligungsholding GmbH, together with Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte GmbH; LandTechnik Schlüter GmbH; ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik GmbH; SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH; SKL Spezialapparatebau GmbH; Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH; Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH) in so far as it requires the Federal Republic of Germany to recover an amount of DEM 3 195 559, including the appurtenant interest from the company Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and a total aid amount of DEM 6 496 271, including the appurtenant interest, from the company Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte (ZEMAG) GmbH;

               2

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs, including those relating to the interim proceedings in Case T-111/01.

      (1)  OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001


title: Case F-89/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2013 — Marrone v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Appointment — Principle of equivalence of careers — Placement in grade applying new rules which are less favourable — Request for reclassification — Lateness — New Facts — None — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/51

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 4 June 2013 — Marrone v Commission
   (Case F-89/12) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Appointment - Principle of equivalence of careers - Placement in grade applying new rules which are less favourable - Request for reclassification - Lateness - New Facts - None - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2013/C 252/95
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Stefania Marrone (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Berscheid, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to reclassify the applicant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Marrone shall bear her own costs and pay those of the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012, p. 33.


title: Case T-266/06: Action brought on 26 September 2006 — Commission v TH Parkner

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/55

         Action brought on 26 September 2006 — Commission v TH Parkner
   (Case T-266/06)
   (2006/C 294/112)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Claimant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Wilderspin, Agent, and R. van der Hout, lawyer)

      Defendant: TH Parkner GmbH (Mühlhausen, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the claimant EUR 64 078,58 plus 6.04 % interest with effect from 1 August 2001 to 31 December 2002 and 8.04 % interest with effect from 1 January 2003;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The claimant entered into a contract with the defendant concerning the granting of an advance payment for the construction of a central heating plant with a thermo-electric converter (Stirling Motor) in industrial premises in Thuringia within the framework of the promotion of energy technology in Europe (THERMIE programme).
   The Commission terminated this contract by letter of 4 December 1995 as the defendant had not used the amount paid to it in a manner consistent with the contract. The present action seeks to effect recovery from the defendant of the final outstanding instalment plus default interest.


title: Case C-360/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 31 July 2012 — Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 31 July 2012 — Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH v First Note Perfumes NV
   (Case C-360/12)
   2012/C 343/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant and appellant on a point of law: Coty Prestige Lancaster Group GmbH

      Defendant and respondent on a point of law: First Note Perfumes NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an act of infringement is committed in one Member State (Member State A), within the meaning of Article 93(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, in the case where, as a result of an act in another Member State (Member State B), there is participation in the infringement in the first-named Member State (Member State A)?

               2.

               Is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that the harmful event occurred in one Member State (Member State A) if the tortious act which is the subject of the action or from which claims are derived was committed in another Member State (Member State B) and consists in participation in the tortious act (principal act) which took place in the first-named Member State (Member State A)?

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

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).