title: Case F-66/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Zareba v Commission

text:
               20.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 222/49

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 4 May 2016 — Zareba v Commission
   (Case F-66/14) (1)

   (2016/C 222/76)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13/10/2014, p. 32.


title: Case C-24/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2015 — Josef Plöckl v Finanzamt Schrobenhausen

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 21 January 2015 — Josef Plöckl v Finanzamt Schrobenhausen
   (Case C-24/15)
   (2015/C 138/38)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Josef Plöckl

      Defendant: Finanzamt Schrobenhausen

      Question referred

   Do Article 22(8), the first subparagraph of Article 28c(A)(a) and Article 28c(A)(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 permit Member States to refuse to grant a tax exemption in respect of an intra-Community supply (in this instance, an intra-Community transfer) where, although the supplier has not taken all the measures that can reasonably be expected of him from the point of view of the formal requirements applicable to the recording of the [VAT] identification number, there is no specific evidence of tax evasion, the goods have been moved to another Member State and the other conditions of exemption from tax are also met?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-514/08: Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2010 — Laboratorios Byly v OHIM — Ginis (BILLY’S Products) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BILLY’S Products — Earlier Community and national word marks BYLY and byly — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/29

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 April 2010 — Laboratorios Byly v OHIM — Ginis (BILLY’S Products)
   (Case T-514/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BILLY’S Products - Earlier Community and national word marks BYLY and byly - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2010/C 148/51
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Laboratorios Byly SA (Barberà del Vallès, Spain) (represented by: L. Plaza Fernández-Villa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Vasileios Ginis (Athens, Greece)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 469/2008-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Laboratorios Byly SA and Vasileios Ginis.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 15 September 2008 (Case R 469/2008-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 24.1.2009.


title: Case T-446/05: Action brought on  22 December 2005  — Aman & Söhne and Cousin Filterie v Commission

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/42

         Action brought on 22 December 2005 — Aman & Söhne and Cousin Filterie v Commission
   (Case T-446/05)
   (2006/C 60/81)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Aman & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Bönnigheim, Germany) and Cousin Filterie S.A.S. (Wervicq, France) (represented by: A. Röhling and M. Dietrich)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in so far as it relates to the applicants;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants to an appropriate amount;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants are challenging Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 final of 14 September 2005 in Case 38.337 — PO/Thread (supplemented by the defendant's decision C(2005) 3765 of 13 October 2005). In the contested decision fines were imposed on the applicants for infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement.
   In support of their application the applicants rely on six pleas in law.
   First, they allege infringement of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1). In this connection they submit that the Commission erred in law in Article 1 of the contested decision in assuming three separate infringements of Article 81(1) EC and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement. In reality there was one single infringement within the terms of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1/2003. Furthermore, the defendant erred in establishing the duration of the infringement.
   In their second plea in law the applicants submit that there has been an infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17/1962 (2) or of Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003. In their opinion the Commission infringed those provisions in imposing fines exceeding ten percent of the total worldwide turnover of the Amann Group.
   Furthermore, the contested decision of the Commission infringes the principles of equal treatment and proportionality.
   Fourthly, Aman & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG alleges the incorrect application of the Guidelines regarding industrial sewing threads due to wrongful differentiation in establishing the initial amount, incorrect calculation as regards the duration of the infringement and wrongful failure to take account of extenuating circumstances.
   The applicants submit incorrect application of the Guidelines regarding the automobile industry as their fifth plea in law. That infringement by the Commission, they submit, lies in incorrect calculation of the basic amount and failure to take account of the fact that the infringement was not implemented.
   Lastly, the applicants submit that the defendant infringed the right to a fair hearing pursuant to Article 27(1) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the applicants' rights of defence under Article 27(2) of Regulation No 1/2003.

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

      (2)  EEC Council: Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87).


title: Case C-509/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 9 November 2012 — IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos v Navileme-Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte (Portugal) lodged on 9 November 2012 — IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos v Navileme-Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda
   (Case C-509/12)
   2013/C 32/05
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Central Administrativo Norte

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: IPTM-Instituto Portuário e dos Transportes Marítimos

      Defendants: Navileme-Consultadoria Náutica, Lda, Nautizende — Consultadoria Náutica, Lda

      Question referred

   Must the law of the European Union, having regard to the principle of prohibition of discrimination between nationals of one Member State and nationals of another Member State (Article 18 TFEU, formerly Article 12 EC), having regard to the free movement of persons in the EU and exceptions thereto (Article 45(3) TFEU, formerly Article 39 EC) and having regard to the freedom to provide services and possible restrictions thereof (Article 52 TFEU, formerly Article 46 EC, by virtue of Article 62 TFEU, formerly Article 55 EC), be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which requires residence within national territory as a precondition for the issue of a recreational boating licence?


title: Case T-132/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — ERNI Electronics v OHIM (Maxibridge) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark MaxiBridge — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness of the function of the goods indicated in the trade mark application — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009))

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/48

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 June 2009 — ERNI Electronics v OHIM (Maxibridge)
   (Case T-132/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark MaxiBridge - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness of the function of the goods indicated in the trade mark application - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   2009/C 180/90
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ERNI Electronics GmbH (Adelberg, Germany) (represented by: N. Breitenbach and W. Schaller, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2008 (Case R 1530/2006-4) regarding the registration of the word sign Maxibridge as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders ERNI Electronics GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142 of 7.6.2008


title: Case C-256/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Drago Nemec v Republic of Slovenia

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije (Slovenia) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Drago Nemec v Republic of Slovenia
   (Case C-256/15)
   (2015/C 302/18)
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Drago Nemec

      Defendant: Republic of Slovenia

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/35 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that, in a system in which, for the purposes of engaging in an economic activity, a natural person is granted authorisation stating the activity for which authorisation is granted, there is no undertaking, nor, therefore, any commercial transaction within the meaning of the above-mentioned provision of the Directive, when the legal transaction giving rise to late payment relates to an activity not covered by the authorisation?
               If the reply to the above question is in the negative:

               2.

               Is the third subparagraph of Article 2(1) of Directive 2000/35 to be interpreted as meaning that a natural person is deemed to be an undertaking and the legal transaction giving rise to late payment constitutes a commercial transaction within the meaning of that provision, when the legal transaction does not fall within the activity registered by the said natural person but stems from an activity which, by its nature, may be an economic activity, and an invoice has been issued for that transaction?

               3.

               Does the rule that interest on late payment ceases to run when the amount of accrued and unpaid interest equals the principal amount owed (the rule ne ultra alterum tantum) run counter to the provisions of Directive 2000/35?

      (1)  Directive 2000/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions (OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35).


title: Case C-314/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland) lodged on 14 July 2008 — Krzysztof Filipiak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny (Republic of Poland) lodged on 14 July 2008 — Krzysztof Filipiak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu
   (Case C-314/08)
   (2008/C 247/14)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Krzysztof Filipiak

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 43(1) and (2) EC be construed as precluding the provisions of Polish national law in Article 26(1)(2) of the ustawa o podatku dochodowym od osób fizychznych (Law on income tax payable by natural persons) of 26 July 1991 …, under which the right to a reduction of the basis of assessment for income tax by the amount of compulsory social insurance contributions is restricted to contributions paid on the basis of provisions of national law, and in Article 27b(1) of the Law of 26 July 1991 on income tax payable by natural persons, under which the right to a reduction of income tax by the amount of compulsory health insurance contributions is restricted to contributions paid on the basis of provisions of national law, in the case where a Polish national, subject to unlimited liability to tax in Poland on income taxed there, also pays in another Member State compulsory social and health insurance contributions in respect of an economic activity carried on in that other State, and those contributions have not been deducted from income or from tax there?

               2.

               Must the principle of the primacy of Community law and Article 10 and Article 43(1) and (2) EC be construed as taking precedence over the national provisions in Article 91(2) and (3) and Article 190(1) and (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (Dz. U. (Journal of Laws) 1997 No 14, heading 176, as amended) in so far as the entry into force of a judgment of the Constitutional Court has been deferred on the basis of those provisions?


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2001 in Case T-166/99, Luis Fernando Andres de Dios and Others v Council of the European Union (Decision 1999/307/EC — Integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council — Action for annulment — Admissibility)

text:
24.11.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 331/19
J. Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxem-             — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
bourg, against Commission of the European Communities                     Composition), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, R. Garcı́a-
(Agents: V. Kreuschitz and K.-D. Borchardt, and N. Khan),                 Valdecasas, V. Tiili, R.M. Moura Ramos and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
supported by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:                         H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in
W.-D. Plessing, T. Jürgensen and M. Maier) and by RAG                     which it:
Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen (Germany), represented
by M. Hansen and S. Völcker, lawyers, with an address for                 1.    Dismisses the action;
service in Luxembourg — applications for annulment of
Commission Decisions 1999/270/EC and 1999/299/ECSC of                     2.    Orders the applicant to pay her own costs and those incurred
2 and 22 December 1998 on German aid to the coal industry                       by the defendant;
for 1998 and 1999 (OJ 1999 L 109, p. 14 and L 117, p. 44)
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended                   3.    Orders each of the interveners to bear their own costs.
Composition), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, K. Le-
naerts, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and J. Pirrung, Judges; D. Chris-           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 12 July 2001, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the actions;
2.     Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and those incurred          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       by the Commission and the intervener RAG Aktiengesellschaft;
                                                                                of 27 June 2001
3.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.
                                                                          in Case T-166/99, Luis Fernando Andres de Dios and
( 1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999 and C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                   Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                          (Decision 1999/307/EC — Integration of the Schengen
                                                                          Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council —
                                                                                Action for annulment — Admissibility)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/31)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                           of 12 July 2001
in Case T-120/99 Christina Kik v Office for Harmonisation                 In Case T-166/99 Luis Fernando Andres de Dios, residing in
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                          Brussels, Belgium, Maria Soledad Garcı́a Retortillo, residing in
                              (OHIM) (1)                                  Cáceres, Spain, Suzanne Kitlas, residing in Brussels, Jacques
                                                                          Verraes, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis,
                                                                          G. Parmentier and V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service
(Article 115 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Rules govern-                  in Luxembourg, supported by Union syndicale-Bruxelles,
ing languages at the Office for Harmonisation in the                      established in Brussels, represented by S. Parmesan, lawyer,
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) — Plea of                       with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of
          illegality — Principle of non-discrimination)                   the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer, F. Anton and
                                                                          A. Bentley) — application for annulment of Council Decision
                          (2001/C 331/30)                                 1999/307/EC of 1 May 1999 laying down the detailed
                                                                          arrangements for the integration of the Schengen Secretariat
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                        into the General Secretariat of the Council (OJ 1999 L 119,
                                                                          p. 49) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),
                                                                          composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung,
                                                                          Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
In Case T-120/99 Christina Kik, residing in The Hague                     given a judgment on 27 June 2001, in which it:
(Netherlands), represented by G.L. Kooy, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, supported by the Hellenic              1.    Dismisses the action as inadmissible;
Republic (Agents: K. Samoni-Randou and S. Vodina), against
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade                2.    Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and jointly and
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: O. Montalto, J. Miranda                      severally to pay those of the Council;
de Sousa, and J. Bourgeois), supported by the Kingdom of
Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) and the Council of the                   3.    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
European Union (Agents: G. Houttuin and A. Lo Monaco) —
action brought against the decision of the Third Board of                 (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 March 1999 (Case R 65/98-3)


title: Case T-566/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Total Raffinage Marketing v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Paraffin waxes market — Slack wax market — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Proof of the existence of the cartel — Concept of a single and continuous infringement — Duration of the infringement — Interruption of the infringement — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Equal treatment — Presumption of innocence — Attributability of the unlawful conduct — Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries — Decisive influence exercised by the parent company — Presumption where the parent company holds 100 % of the shares — Proportionality — Rounding method — Unlimited jurisdiction)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/18

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2013 — Total Raffinage Marketing v Commission
   (Case T-566/08) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Paraffin waxes market - Slack wax market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Proof of the existence of the cartel - Concept of a single and continuous infringement - Duration of the infringement - Interruption of the infringement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Equal treatment - Presumption of innocence - Attributability of the unlawful conduct - Liability of a parent company for infringements of the competition rules committed by its subsidiaries - Decisive influence exercised by the parent company - Presumption where the parent company holds 100 % of the shares - Proportionality - Rounding method - Unlimited jurisdiction)
   2013/C 313/33
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Total Raffinage Marketing (Puteaux, France) (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, C. Falmagne, C. Lemaire and S. Naudin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and A. Biolan, acting as Agents, and by N. Coutrelis, lawyer)

      Re:

   Primarily, application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes), and, in the alternative, application for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders the fine imposed on Total Raffinage Marketing in Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.181 — Candle waxes) to be set at EUR 125 459 842;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Total Raffinage Marketing to bear nine-tenths of its own costs and to pay nine-tenths of the costs of the European Commission. The European Commission is to bear one-tenth of its own costs and to pay one-tenth of the costs incurred by Total Raffinage Marketing.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.


title: Case T-314/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Portugal v Commission (Cohesion Fund — Development of port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira (Port of Caniçal) — Reduction of financial assistance — Non-compliance with the time-limit for adopting a decision — Infringement of essential procedural requirements)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/46

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Portugal v Commission
   (Case T-314/13) (1)

   ((Cohesion Fund - Development of port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira (Port of Caniçal) - Reduction of financial assistance - Non-compliance with the time-limit for adopting a decision - Infringement of essential procedural requirements))
   (2015/C 302/59)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent, M. Gorjão-Henriques and J. da Silva Sampaio, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision C (2013) 1870 final of 27 March 2013 reducing the contribution from the Cohesion Fund to the Portuguese Republic for the project ‘Development of port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira — Port of Caniçal’, Madeira (Portugal).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Commission Decision C (2013) 1870 final of 27 March 2013 reducing the contribution from the Cohesion Fund to the Portuguese Republic for the project ‘Development of port infrastructures of the Autonomous Region of Madeira — Port of Caniçal’, Madeira (Portugal);

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 3.8.2013.


title: Case C-232/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — v Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others
   (Case C-232/12)
   2012/C 217/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fastweb SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni and Others

      Question referred

   Are the Community provisions in the sector, and in particular the provisions of Directive No 2002/20/EC, (1) to be interpreted as precluding the national rules referred to, in particular Law No 266 of 2005, as those provisions are actually applied by regulation included.

      (1)  Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive); OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21.


title: Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Marc Blijweert and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-139/97)

text:
No C 228/ 18            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  26 . 7 . 97
Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Kelvin William                        — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's
Stephens against the Commission of the European                              decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
                              Communities                                    rejecting the applicant's complaint,
                          ( Case T-137/97)
                             ( 97/C 228/41 )                             — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997                    Case T-16/97 ( x ).
by Kelvin William Stephens, residing in Brussels,
represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an              (') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the Commission's decision of 14 June 1996                        Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Marc Blijweert and
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                      others against the Commission of the European
     consideration to the possible application of                                                    Communities
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                                ( Case T-139/97 )
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the Commission's                                            ( 97/C 228/43 )
     decision adopted on 27 December 1996 expressly
     rejecting the applicant's complaint,                                                (Language of the case: French)
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997
                                                                         by Marc Blijweert, residing at Sint Pietersleeuw ( Belgium ),
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                   Manuel Carvalhosa, residing in Brussels, Rita Lehmann,
Case T-16/97 H.                                                          residing in Moscow, Annette Mills, residing in Brussels,
                                                                         Glenys Nichol, residing in Brussels, Jeffery Piper, residing
(') OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.                                    at Sint Stevens-Woluwe ( Belgium ), Francisco Sentieiro,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, and Guy Thiry, residing at Maleves
                                                                         ( Berlgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the
                                                                         Liege Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau.
Action brought on 28 April 1997 by Carla Rinaldin
                                                                         The applicants claims that the Court should :
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                           ( Case T-138/97)
                              ( 97/C 228/42 )
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request
                                                                              to be regraded,
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their
An action against the Commission of the European                              administrative complaint,
 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 28 April 1997
 by Carla Rinaldin, residing at Corgeno di Vergiate (Italy),             — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 represented by Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an
 address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fidu               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
ciaire Myson Sari, 30, Rue de Cessange .
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                          Case T-16/97 (').
— annul the Commission's decision of 20 June 1996
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                       O OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.
     consideration to the possible application of
     Article 31 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 26 October 1995 in Case C-36/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Fiscal Aduaneiro de Lisboa): Siesse - Soluções Integrais em Sistemas Software e Aplicações Lda. v. Director da Alfândega de Alcântara (Release of goods for free circulation - Failure to comply with the time-limit for assignment to a customs-approved treatment or use - Imposition of a levy)

text:
9 . 12. 95           1 EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 333/3
( District   Court),    Amsterdam        ( Netherlands ),   for  a                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                        ( Fifth Chamber )
court between S. E. Klaus and Bestuur van de Nieuwe
Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging — on the interpretation of                                        of 26 October 1995
Article 25 ( 2 ), Article 35 ( 3 ) and Article 71 ( 1 ) of Council      in Case C-36/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                    Tribunal Fiscal Aduaneiro de Lisboa ): Siesse — Soluções
application of social security schemes to employed persons,             Integrais em Sistemas Software e Aplicações Lda. v. Director
to self-employed persons and to members of their families                                da Alfândega de Alcântara ( J )
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by                  (Release ofgoods for free circulation — Failure to comply
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ( OJ              with the time-limit for assignment to a customs-approved
1983 L 230 , p. 6 ), the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of                      treatment or use — Imposition of a levy)
D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber,
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, P. Jann und                                                 ( 95/C 333/05 )
L. Sevon, Judges; A. M. La Pergola , Advocate-General;
H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has                           (Language of the case: Portuguese)
given a judgment on 26 October 1995, in which it rules
that :
                                                                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                        In Case C-36/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
1 . Article 35 (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
     of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security              the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Fiscal Aduaneiro de Lisboa
     schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons              ( Customs Court, Lisbon ) for a preliminary ruling in the
     and to members of their families moving within the                 proceedings pending before that court between Siesse —
     Community, as amended and updated by Regulation                    Solu^oes Integrals em Sistemas Software e Aplica^oes Ld?
     (EEC) No 2001 /83 of2 June 1983, does not apply to the             and Director da Alfandega de Alcantara-Lisboa ( Director of
     legislation ofa Member State which precludes, in whole             the Alcantara Customs Office, Lisbon ) — on the
     or in part, the grant of sickness benefits if the worker           interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4151/88 of
     concerned was already unfit for work at the time                   21 December 1988 laying down the provisions applicable to
     when he became insured under the scheme which it                   goods brought into the customs territory of the Community
     establishes .                                                      ( OJ 1988 L 367, p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
                                                                        composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
                                                                        J. -P. Puissochet ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, P. Jann and
                                                                        L. Sevon, Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A.
2 . Article 18 (1 ) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 is to be             Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
     interpreted as meaning that, where the applicable                  judgment on 26 October 1995 , the operative part of which
                                                                        is as follows :
     legislation of a Member State makes the grant of cash
     sickness benefits subject to the condition that the
     insured person was not already unfit for work at the               1 . Council Regulation (EEC) No 4151 /88 of 21 December
     time when he became insured under the scheme which it                    1988 laying down the provisions applicable to goods
     establishes, the competent institution must also take                    brought into the customs territory of the Community
     into account periods of insurance completed by that                      does not preclude the customs authority from accepting,
     person under the legislation ofanother Member State, as                 after the expiry of the periods provided for in
     if those periods had been completed under the                           Article 15 (1 ), a declaration for release for free
     legislation which it administers.                                        circulation of goods brought into the customs territory
                                                                              of the Community.
                                                                        2 . Article 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 4151 /88 does not
3 . The fact that, having transferred his residence from one                 preclude the customs authority from requiring the
     Member State to another Member State, the person                        payment ofa sum, other than the customs duties and any
     concerned was for a short period neither employed nor                    expenses arising from the temporary storage of the
     registered as seeking employment in the latter State does               goods, for accepting a declaration for their release for
     not interrupt the continuity of the insurance periods                    free circulation after the expiry of the periods provided
     completed by that person or preclude application of the                  for in Article 15 (1 ), provided that the amount of that
     aggregation rule laid down by Article 18 (1 ) of                         sum is determined in accordance with the principle of
     Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 .                                            proportionality and under conditions which are
                                                                              analogous to those applicable in national law to
                                                                              infringements of the same nature and gravitiy. It is for
(') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 , p . 7 .                                      the national court to determine whether the surcharge in
                                                                              issue is consistent with those principles.
                                                                        (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .


title: Case C-74/00 P: Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Falck SpA against the judgment delivered on 16 December 1999 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 135/6               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.5.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                 Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Falck SpA against
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of                    the judgment delivered on 16 December 1999 by the
29 February 2000 in the appeal concerning Neubau                       Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
Gesellschaft mbH, Wiesinger-Hohensinner OEG, Grund-                    First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-
verkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundver-                 158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Com-
       kehrslandeskommission des Landes Salzburg                                  mission of the European Communities
                         (Case C-72/00)
                                                                                (Case C-74/00 P)
                        (2000/C 135/10)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                        (2000/C 135/12)
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 29 February 2000, received at the               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 December
Court Registry on 2 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in            1999 by the Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
the appeal concerning Neubau Gesellschaft mbH, Wiesinger-              Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Hohensinner OEG, Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes                  T-158/96 between Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission
Salzburg and Grundverkehrslandeskommission des Landes                  of the European Communities (Italian Republic and Falck SpA,
Salzburg on the following question:                                    interveners) was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be        European Communities on 2 March 2000 by Falck SpA
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12 to          represented by Giulio Macrı̀, Massimo Condinanzi and Franco
14 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg land                Colussi, with an address for service at 36, Rue de Wiltz,
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.                Luxembourg.
No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by         1. Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this                  the European Communities in Case T-158/96 between
case?                                                                      Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission of the Euro-
                                                                           pean Communities (Italian Republic and Falck SpA, inter-
                                                                           veners);
                                                                       2. By so doing, annul Commission Decision 96/617/ECSC (1).
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of
29 February 2000 in the appeal concerning Hans Oppitz,                 In the alternative:
Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg and Grund-
         verkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg
                                                                       3. In the event that the Court of Justice should decide that it
                         (Case C-73/00)                                    cannot make a decision as to the status of the measure, set
                                                                           aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and refer
                        (2000/C 135/11)                                    the case to another sitting of the Court of First Instance,
                                                                           indicating the points of law upheld in the present appeal.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 29 February 2000, received at the               In any event:
Court Registry on 2 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling
in the appeal concerning Hans Oppitz, Bürgermeister der
Landeshauptstadt Salzburg and Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des            4. Make any other decisions it may deem necessary.
Landes Salzburg on the following question:
                                                                       5. Order the Commission to pay the costs.
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.                Pleas and main arguments
No 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply with
a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the            The contested judgment should be set aside on the following
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the         grounds:
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?                                                                  — Failure to declare that the rights of the defence had
                                                                           been infringed by the administrative decision and the
                                                                           inconsistency of the decision at issue;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 135/7
— Breach of the prohibition on making decisions containing               The Appellants request the Court that:
    sanctions and of the principle of proportionality; absence/
    inadequacy/inconsistency of the reasons stated in that
    respect;                                                             — The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 Decem-
                                                                             ber 1999 be annulled in so far as it relates to Case
— Breach of rules on limitation periods. Absence and inad-                   T-33/98; and
    equacy of reasons in that respect;
                                                                         — Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 (3) of 17 November 1997 be
— Breach of the prohibition on applying Community rules
                                                                             annulled to the extent requested by the First Appellant
    retroactively. Failure to state reasons in that respect;
                                                                             before the Court of First Instance; and
— Breach of the legal expectations held by Acciaierie di
    Bolzano that it would not have to repay the aid and of the           — The Council be ordered to pay the First Appellant’s costs
    principles of good faith and cooperation;                                both in the present appeal and also in Case T-33/98; and
— Breach of the rule of law which makes the incompatibility
    of ECSC aid dependent on changes in competitive con-                 — The judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 Decem-
    ditions;                                                                 ber 1999 be annulled in so far as it relates to Case
                                                                             T-34/98; and
— Breach of the procedural rules governing inter partes
    proceedings, to the detriment of the interests of Falck and
    Acciaierie di Bolzano.                                               — Regulation (EC) No 2320/97 of 17 November 1997 be
                                                                             annulled to the extent requested by the Second Appellant
                                                                             before the Court of First Instance; and
(1) OJ 1996 L 274, p. 30.
                                                                         — The Council be ordered to pay the Second Appellant’s
                                                                             costs both in the present appeal and also in Case T-34/98.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Appeal brought on 2 March 2000 by Petrotub SA and
Republica SA against the judgment delivered on
15 December 1999 by the Second Chamber, Extended                         The First Appellant (Petrotub SA) will argue that the Court of
Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-                 First Instance erred in law in that:
pean Communities in Joined Cases T-33/98 (1) between
Petrotub SA and the Council of the European Union,
supported by the Commission of the European Communi-                     (a) it considered that the Council had stated adequate reasons
ties, and T-34/98 (2) between Republica SA and the Council                   notwithstanding the fact that the reasons given contained
of the European Union, supported by the Commission of                        no consideration as to whether the second symmetrical
                 the European Communities                                    method would not reflect the full degree of dumping being
                                                                             practised by the First Appellant; and/or
                        (Case C-76/00 P)
                                                                         (b) it considered, in the light of the matters referred to in
                        (2000/C 135/13)                                      paragraphs 108 to 113 of its judgment, that the Council
                                                                             had stated adequate reasons for use of the asymmetrical
                                                                             method; and/or
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 December
1999 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined            (c) in particular, it considered that the Council had stated
Cases T-33/98 between Petrotub SA and the Council of                         adequate reasons by referring, at least by implication, to
the European Union, supported by the Commission of the                       the fact that the asymmetrical method produced an
European Communities, and T-34/98 between Republica SA                       arithmetically greater result than the first symmetrical
and the Council of the European Union, supported by the                      method; and/or
Commission of the European Communities, was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
2 March 2000 by Petrotub SA and Republica SA, represented                (d) it failed to consider whether the reasons given in the
by Alfred L. Merckx of the Brussels Bar and Philip Bentley QC,               contested regulation constituted an explanation why the
barrister of Lincoln’s Inn, London, with an address for service              differences in export prices could not be taken into account
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Duro & Lorang, 3, rue de                    appropriately by the use of the first or the second
la Chapelle.                                                                 symmetrical methods.


title: Case T-156/10: Order of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Confederación de Cooperativas Agrarias de España and CEPES v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Spanish legislation laying down measures in favour of agricultural cooperatives following the fuel price increase — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Professional associations — Lack of individual concern — No recovery — No longer any interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/10

         Order of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — Confederación de Cooperativas Agrarias de España and CEPES v Commission
   (Case T-156/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Spanish legislation laying down measures in favour of agricultural cooperatives following the fuel price increase - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Professional associations - Lack of individual concern - No recovery - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   2014/C 78/20
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Confederación de Cooperativas Agrarias de España (Madrid, Spain), and Confederación Empresarial Española de la Economía Social (CEPES) (Madrid) (represented by: M. Araujo Boyd and M. Muñoz de Juan, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and C. Urraca Caviedes, agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid (Aeescam) (represented by: R. Ortega Bueno and M. Delgado Echevarría, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul Commission decision 2010/473/EU of 15 December 2009 relating to measures to support agriculture implemented by Spain following the fuel price increase (OJ 2010 L 235, p.1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Confederación de Cooperativas Agrarias de España and the Confederación Empresarial Española de la Economía Social (CEPES) shall bear their own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The Asociación de Empresarios de Estaciones de Servicio de la Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid (Aeescam) shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.


title: Case T-365/05: Action brought on  26 September 2005  — Mische/Parliament

text:
               10.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/15

         Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Mische/Parliament
   (Case T-365/05)
   (2005/C 315/28)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Harald Mische (Brussels, Belgium) [represented by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi, lawyers]

      Defendant(s): European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the cancellation of the grading given on the 4 October 2004 in the appointment decision of the Nominating Authority which was to take effect 16 November to grade him on his recruitment to DG Competition as ‘junior lawyer’ at category A*, grade 6, step 1, implying the reinstatement of all his rights as deriving from a legal and regular employment, i.e. a legal and regular grading as of 16 November 2004, which means at minimum an A7/3 grading (valid as of 1 November 2003) or its equivalent according to Articles 1-11 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulations (A*8/3);

               —

               grant the award of damages with (i) Aintérêts de retard@, compensation for his prejudice to his career, and (ii) other damages in form of a legal and regular pay, notably the application of the transitional provision contained in Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation in force as of 1 May 2004 or, alternatively, the lowering of contributions to the pension scheme based on the principle of equal pay. These rights will have to be duly evaluated at a later stage and are now evaluated, provisionally and ex aequo et bono, at a minimum of 10 000 euros per year;

               —

               order that the Parliament pays all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, an official appointed after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations on 1st May 2004, but from a reserve list drawn up on the basis of a competition organised before that date, contests his appointment grade. He invokes the same pleas and arguments he had already invoked in Case T-288/05 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17/09/05, p. 35


title: Case C-466/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Dietmar Klarenberg v Ferrotron Technologies GmbH (Social policy — Directive 2001/23/EC — Transfer of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees' rights — Concept of legal transfer — Legal transfer of a part of a business to another undertaking — Organisational autonomy following the transfer)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 February 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Dietmar Klarenberg v Ferrotron Technologies GmbH
   (Case C-466/07) (1)

   (Social policy - Directive 2001/23/EC - Transfer of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees' rights - Concept of legal transfer - Legal transfer of a part of a business to another undertaking - Organisational autonomy following the transfer)
   (2009/C 82/08)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dietmar Klarenberg

      Defendant: Ferrotron Technologies GmbH
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Landesarbeitsgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 16) — Applicability of Directive 2001/23/EC in the event of a legal transfer of a part of a business to another undertaking which integrates, into its organisational structure, the part of the business that has been transferred without preserving the latter's organisational autonomy — Concept of ‘transfer’ for the purposes of Directive 2001/23/EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 1(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that that directive may also apply in a situation where the part of the undertaking or business transferred does not retain its organisational autonomy, provided that the functional link between the various elements of production transferred is preserved, and that that link enables the transferee to use those elements to pursue an identical or analogous economic activity, a matter which it is for the national court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 8.12.2008.


title: Case F-29/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 July 2010 — Quadu v Parliament

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/76

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 26 July 2010 — Quadu v Parliament
      (Case F-29/07) (1)

      ()
      (2010/C 288/147)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 37.


title: Case T-73/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Carbone-Lorraine v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Gravity and duration of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Principle of proportionality — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Carbone-Lorraine v Commission
   (Case T-73/04) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment)
   (2008/C 301/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Carbone-Lorraine (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: A. Winckler and I. Simic, then A. Winckler and H. Kanellopoulos, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, Agents)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/420/EC of 3 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No C.38.359 — Electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products), and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Le Carbone-Lorraine to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case T-629/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Biogas Nord Anlagenbau v Commission

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/28

         Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Biogas Nord Anlagenbau v Commission
   (Case T-629/11)
   2012/C 49/50
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Biogas Nord Anlagenbau GmbH (Bielefeld, Germany) (represented by: C. Birkemeyer, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 26 January 2011 on State aid C 7/2010 (ex CP 250/2009 and NN 5/2010) implemented by Germany ‘KStG, Sanierungsklausel’ (‘Law on corporate tax, provision enabling the fiscal carry forward of losses to allow for the restructuring of companies in difficulty’) (document C(2011) 275) pursuant to Article 264 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: compliance with the private creditor principle
               In the context of the first plea, the applicant submits that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the German Körperschaftsteuergesetz (KStG) (Law on corporation tax) is not aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU because the beneficiary undertakings provide consideration of equal value in return which bears comparison with the conduct of a private creditor in a market economy.

               2.

               Second plea in law: no selectivity
               The applicant submits in that regard that Paragraph 8c(1a) of the KStG is not aid within the meaning of Article 107 et seq. TFEU because that provision does not have the effect of selectively favouring certain undertakings.

               3.

               Third plea in law: protection of legitimate expectations
               In the context of the third plea, the applicant submits that the legitimate expectations of undertakings which have made arrangements regarding assets before they know about a procedure initiated by the Commission under Article 108(2) TFEU enjoy protection.


title: Case F-71/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 November 2007 — Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/58

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 November 2007 — Karatzoglou v European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR)
   (Case F-71/07) (1)

   (2008/C 22/113)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007, p. 70.


title: Case C-281/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Trento Sviluppo srl, Centrale Adriatica Soc. coop. arl v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consumer protection — Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices — Directive 2005/29/EC — Article 6(1) — Concept of ‘misleading action’ — Cumulative nature of the conditions set out in the provision in question)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Trento Sviluppo srl, Centrale Adriatica Soc. coop. arl v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
   (Case C-281/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer protection - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices - Directive 2005/29/EC - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘misleading action’ - Cumulative nature of the conditions set out in the provision in question)
   2014/C 52/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Trento Sviluppo srl, Centrale Adriatica Soc. coop. arl

      Respondent: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — Concept of ‘misleading action’ — Cumulative nature of the conditions listed under the provision in question.

      Operative part of the judgment

   A commercial practice must be classified as ‘misleading’ for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) where that practice contains false information, or is likely to deceive the average consumer, and is likely to cause the consumer to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise. Article 2(k) of the directive must be interpreted as meaning that any decision directly related to the decision whether or not to purchase a product is covered by the concept of ‘transactional decision’.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.


title: Case T-100/08 P: Order of the General Court of 6 May 2010 — Kerelov v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Recruitment — General competition — Refusal by the Director of EPSO to communicate to a candidate information and documents relating to the admission test — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/39

         Order of the General Court of 6 May 2010 — Kerelov v Commission
   (Case T-100/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Recruitment - General competition - Refusal by the Director of EPSO to communicate to a candidate information and documents relating to the admission test - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   2010/C 179/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Georgi Kerelov (Pazardzhik, Bulgaria) (represented by: A. Kerelov, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and K. Herrmann, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 in Case F-110/07 Kerelov v Commission, not published in the ECR, asking for that order to be set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Georgi Kerelov is ordered to bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the context of the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 69 of 21.3.2009


title: Case C-273/02: Action brought on 24 July 2002 by European Parliament against Council of the European Union

text:
14.9.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 219/9
Action brought on 24 July 2002 by the Commission of                     The Commission concludes that the object of the legislation in
the European Communities against the Council of the                     question is the completion of the internal market and that it
                        European Union                                  does not constitute a set of measures harmonising tax pro-
                                                                        visions. The correct legal base is thus Article 95 EC and not
                                                                        Article 93.
                         (Case C-272/02)
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 128, 15.5.2002, p. 1.
                         (2002/C 219/15)                                (2 ) of 27 January 1992 (OJ L 24, 1.2.1992, p. 1).
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 24 July 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Richard Lyal, acting as agent,              Action brought on 24 July 2002 by European Parliament
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                           against Council of the European Union
                                                                                (Case C-273/02)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2002/C 219/16)
1)    declare that Council Regulation (EC) No 792/2002 ( 1) of
      7 May 2002 amending temporarily Regulation (EEC)
      No 218/92 (2) on administrative cooperation in the field
      of indirect taxation (VAT) as regards additional measures
      regarding electronic commerce is void;                            An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 24 July 2002 by the European Parliament, represented
2)    maintain the effects of the regulation until the entry into
                                                                        by Ch. Pennera and A. Neergaard, acting as Agents, with an
      force of a regulation adopted on the correct legal basis;
                                                                        address for service in Luxembourg.
3)    order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        1.     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 792/2002 of 7 May
                                                                               2002 amending temporarily Regulation (EEC) No 218/
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                92 on administrative cooperation in the field of indirect
                                                                               taxation (VAT) as regards additional measures regarding
                                                                               electronic commerce ( 1);
The Commission submits that Council Regulation (EC)
No 792/2002 has been adopted on an incorrect legal basis, in            2.     maintain the effects of the annulled regulation until the
                                                                               European Parliament and the Council adopt, on the
disregard of the prerogatives of the European Parliament.
                                                                               proper legal basis, a new regulation;
                                                                        3.     order the defendant to pay the costs.
In the view of the Commission the expression ‘fiscal provisions’
as used in Article 95(2) EC is to be understood as including
rules on taxable persons, taxable events, basis of taxation, rates
and exemptions, along with the detailed rules on assessment
and enforcement. That logic does not, the Commission                    Pleas in law and main arguments
submits, extend to mutual assistance in tax matters. Measures
of cooperation, verification and information whose purpose is
to facilitate the elimination of frontiers without affecting the        Breach of essential procedural requirements and infringement
substance of Member State’s own tax rules do not impinge on             of the EC Treaty: the contested regulation should have been
the tax jurisdiction of the Member States. Such measures                based on Article 95 EC. The language of Article 93 EC
therefore do not fall within the justification advanced for the         ‘harmonisation of legislation concerning ... taxes’ indicates that
exclusion of ‘fiscal provisions’ from the Article 95(1) EC              that provision refers to substantive tax law. Articles 93
derogation, for there is no interference with the right and the         and 95(2) EC must, as lex specialis, be interpreted restrictively.
ability of each Member State to organise its tax system as it           Administrative cooperation measures have no effect on sub-
wishes.                                                                 stantive tax law, which is a matter which falls within the
 ---pagebreak--- C 219/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       14.9.2002
purview of the Member States. However, the contested regu-              Action brought on 30 July 2002 by the Commission of
lation concerns, as evidenced by its title, exclusively adminis-         the European Communities against the French Republic
trative cooperation in the field of indirect taxation (VAT) in
the internal market and not the VAT system properly speaking.
                                                                                (Case C-280/02)
( 1) OJ 2002 L 128, p. 1.
                                                                                (2002/C 219/18)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 July
Action brought on 29 July 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain                  2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   represented by M. Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg.
                          (Case C-276/02)
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                          (2002/C 219/17)                               the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by not identifying certain areas as sensitive
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     areas with respect to eutrophication, in the catchment
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  areas of Seine-Normandie, Loire-Bretagne, Artois-Picardie
Communities on 29 July 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain,                          and Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse, and not subjecting to
represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado,                   more stringent treatment discharges of urban waste water
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish                      from agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.)
Embassy, 4-6 boulevard E. Servais.                                            of more than 10 000 into sensitive areas or areas which
                                                                              should have been identified as sensitive, the French
                                                                              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Article 5(1) and (2) of and Annex II to Directive 91/271/
                                                                              EEC (1);
—     declare the decision of the Commission of 14 May 2002
      null and void in so far as the Commission therein declared        —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
      that the continued failure of GEA (Grupo de Empresas
      Álvarez) to pay taxes and social security contributions
      amounts a grant of State aid incompatible with the
      common market, and
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                        —     Incomplete identification of sensitive areas: The French
                                                                              authorities wrongly limited themselves to identifying
                                                                              bodies of water where they consider eutrophication to be
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               established; they thus did not take account of the
                                                                              obligation also to identify as sensitive, in accordance with
                                                                              Annex II to the Directive, bodies of water ‘which in the
The only thing that has happened is the liquidation of an                     near future may become eutrophic if protective action is
undertaking in crisis, preceded by a general procedure for the                not taken’. For that reason, or because eutrophication
suspension of payments. That procedure, initiated and directed                should already have been identified, the Commission
by the court, enables creditors to reach agreements with the                  considers that the French Republic has failed to identify,
debtor undertaking which, in comparison with an immediate                     in breach of its obligations pursuant to Article 5(1) of
liquidation, increase the likelihood of the undertaking’s recov-              and Annex II to the Directive:
ery and the payment of some of its debts. The same procedure
for the suspension of payments may, of course, be sought
and obtained by any competing undertakings which bring                        —     in Seine-Normandie: the Seine bay, the Seine and its
complaints, should they to find themselves in a situation of                        tributaries downstream from its confluence with the
cessation of payments. The Commission has thus failed to                            Andelle;
demonstrate that there has been any State aid subject to
Article 87 EC.
                                                                              —     in Loire-Bretagne: Lorient harbour, the Elorn estuary,
                                                                                the bay of Douarnenez, Concarneau bay, the Gulf of
                                                                                Morbihan, the bay of Vilaine and the Sèvre-Niortaise;