title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2000 in Case T-168/94 (92): Blackspur DIY Ltd and Others v Council of the European Union (Taxation of costs)

text:
C 102/24               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8.4.2000
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 3 February 2000
                      of 16 December 1999
                                                                          in Case T-60/99: Malcolm Townsend v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-198/98: Micro Leader Business v Commission
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Joint sickness insurance scheme — Cover for
                                                                                spouses)
(Competition — Complaint — Rejection — Articles 85 and
86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and 82 EC) —                                                 (2000/C 102/48)
Prohibition on importing software marketed in a third
country — Exhaustion of copyright — Directive
                           91/250/EEC)                                                       (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-60/99: Malcolm Townsend, an official of the
                         (2000/C 102/47)                                  Commission of the European Communities, residing at Sterre-
                                                                          beek (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Greta-Fran-
                                                                          çoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                          service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
                    (Language of the case: French)                        SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities (Agents: Julian Currall and Florence Duvieusart-
                                                                          Clotuche) — application for annulment of the decision of the
                                                                          Brussels Settlements Office of 12 March 1998 refusing to
In Case T-198/98, Micro Leader Business, a company incorpor-              reimburse to the applicant certain medical expenses incurred
ated under French law, established in Aulnay-sous-Bois, France,           by his wife — the Court of First Instance (Single Judge),
represented by Silvestre Tandeau de Marsac, of the Paris Bar,             composed of: V. Tiili, sitting as a single judge; J. Palacio
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of              González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judg-
Brucher and Seimetz, 10 Rue de Vianden, against Commission                ment on 3 February 2000, in which it:
of the European Communities, (Agents: initially José Crespo
Carrillo, and Loïc Guérin and, subsequently, Giuliano Marenco,            1. Dismisses the application;
and Loïc Guérin) — application for annulment of the Com-
mission’s decision of 15 October 1998 (Case IV/36.219                     2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Micro Leader/Microsoft) definitively rejecting the applicant’s
complaint that the actions of Microsoft France and Microsoft
Corporation in seeking to prevent French-language editions of             (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
Microsoft software packages marketed in Canada from being
imported into France are contrary to Articles 85 and 86 of the
EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and 82 EC) — the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber),
composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,
Judges; A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 16 December 1999, in which it:
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision of 15 October 1998 (Case                                    of 7 February 2000
     IV/36.219 Micro Leader/Microsoft) definitively rejecting the
     applicant’s complaint that the actions of Microsoft France and
     Microsoft Corporation in seeking to prevent French-language          in Case T-168/94 (92): Blackspur DIY Ltd and Others v
     editions of Microsoft software packages marketed in Canada                        Council of the European Union (1)
     from being imported into France are contrary to Articles 85 and
     86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC and 82 EC).                                          (Taxation of costs)
                                                                                (2000/C 102/49)
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                          In Case T-168/94 (92): Blackspur DIY Ltd, having its registered
                                                                          office in Unsworth, Bury (United Kingdom), Steven Kellar,
                                                                          J.M.A. Glancy and Ronald Cohen, residing in Manchester
                                                                          (United Kingdom), represented by K.P.E. Lasok, Barrister,
                                                                          instructed by C. Khan, Solicitor, with an address for service in
 ---pagebreak--- 8.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 102/25
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maria Dennewald, 12 Avenue                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
de la Porte Neuve, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
Frédéric Anton and Georg Berrisch) — application for taxation
of costs following the judgment of the Court of First Instance
of 18 September 1995 in Case T-168/94 Blackspur and Others                                    of 6 December 1999
v Council and Commission [19951 ECR II-2627 — the Court
of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition),
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij,         in Case T-81/98: Patricia Boyes v Commission of the
M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has                                European Communities (1)
made an order on 7 February 2000, the operative part of
which is as follows:
                                                                        (Death of the applicant — Proceedings not continued by her
The total amount of the costs to be reimbursed jointly and severally
                                                                                successors — No need to adjudicate)
by Blackspur DIY Ltd and by Steven Kellar, J.M.A. Glancy and
Ronald Cohen to the Council of the European Union is fixed at DEM
32 860.
                                                                                (2000/C 102/51)
(1) OJ C 277 of 15.10.1993.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        In Case T-81/98: Patricia Boyes, residing in Porlock, United
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Kingdom, represented by Becket Bedford, Barrister, of the Bar
                                                                        of England and Wales, and John Kelly, Sarah Ferdinand and
                                                                        Jatinder Sandhu, of Ferdinand Kelly, Solicitors, 21 Bennetts
                      of 4 February 2000                                Hill, Birmingham v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        (Agents: Klaus Wiedner and Xavier Lewis), supported by The
in Case T-147/96: Howard Batho v Commission of the                      Grand Pub Company Ltd, whose registered office is in London,
                  European Communities (1)                              represented by John Boyce and Bertrand Louveaux, Solicitors,
                                                                        with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                        Philippe Hoss, 2 Place Winston Churchill — application for
(Officials — Objection of inadmissibility — New and
                                                                        annulment of the Commission’s decision of 5 March 1998
substantial fact — Confirmatory act — Classification in
                                                                        (Case IV/94.907/F3 - NAIL) rejecting the applicant’s complaint
       grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                        under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 17 of the Council of
                                                                        6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85
                       (2000/C 102/50)                                  and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
                                                                        p. 87) concerning the standard lease used by Inntrepreneur
                                                                        Estates Ltd for letting its licensed premises in the United
                  (Language of the case: French)                        Kingdom, requiring tenants to purchase certain specified types
                                                                        of beer exclusively from the supplier designated by the lessor,
                                                                        and for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by
In Case T-147/96: Howard Batho, official of the Commission
                                                                        reason of that decision — the Court (Third Chamber), compo-
of the European Communities, residing in Honnekinberg,
                                                                        sed of K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
Belgium, represented by J.-N. Louis and T. Demaseure, of the
                                                                        H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 6 December 1999,
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                        the operative part of which is as follows:
Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
sia and J. Currall) — application for annulment of the
                                                                        1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application.
Commission decision of 12 February 1996 classifying the
applicant — the Court of First Instance (single judge) has made
an order on 4 February 2000 in which it:
                                                                        2. The parties, including the intervener, shall bear their own costs.
1. Dismisses the action;
2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.                             (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.


title: Case F-40/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 February 2009 — Cavalhal Garcia v Council (Staff case — Former officials — Remuneration — Education allowance — Refusal to grant — Action out of time — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/36

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 3 February 2009 — Cavalhal Garcia v Council
   (Case F-40/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Former officials - Remuneration - Education allowance - Refusal to grant - Action out of time - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2009/C 82/64)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Daniela Paula Cavalhal Garcia (Sines, Portugal) (represented by: Antas da Cunha, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and J. Monteiro, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Council's decision removing the right to the education allowance as regards the applicant's daughter.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Ms Carvalhal Garcia is to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008, p. 33.


title: Case T-614/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 20 January 2014 — Romonta v Commission (Interim measures — Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — System of exchange of greenhouse gas emission allowances — Free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 — Application for recognition of hardship — Lack of urgency)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 20 January 2014 — Romonta v Commission
   (Case T-614/13 R)
   (Interim measures - Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - System of exchange of greenhouse gas emission allowances - Free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances from 2013 - Application for recognition of hardship - Lack of urgency)
   2014/C 93/40
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Romonta GmbH (Amsdorf, Seebebiet Mansfelder Land, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke, M. Vollmer, C. Telschow and A. Schultze, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a stay of execution of Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as the allocation of emission allowances to the applicant for hardship is refused.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-504/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 19 November 2007 — Associação Nacional de Transportes Rodoviários de Pesados de Passageiros (Antrop) and Others v Council of Ministers and Others

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 19 November 2007 — Associação Nacional de Transportes Rodoviários de Pesados de Passageiros (Antrop) and Others v Council of Ministers and Others
   (Case C-504/07)
   (2008/C 22/56)
   Language of the case: Portugese
   Referring court
   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Associação Nacional de Transportes Rodoviários de Pesados de Passageiros (Antrop) and Others

      Defendant: Council of Ministers and Others
   Questions referred

               (a)

               In the light of Articles 73, 87 and 88 of the Treaty and of Regulation No 1191/69 (1), may the national authorities impose public service obligations on a public undertaking entrusted with the provision of public passenger transport in a municipality?

               (b)

               If the answer is affirmative, must the national authorities pay compensation in respect of those obligations?

               (c)

               Must the national authorities, where they are not obliged to hold a tendering procedure for the award of a concession for the operation of a transport network, extend the compensation obligation to all the undertakings which are regarded, under domestic law and within the same area, as offering public passenger transport?

               (d)

               If the answer is affirmative, what criterion must apply to the payment of compensation?'

               (e)

               In the case of undertakings providing passenger transport by bus which, by virtue of a public concession, carry on their activity on an exclusive basis within specified urban districts, but also carry on that activity in competition with private operators outside the urban areas covered by such exclusivity, does the grant by the State, year by year, of aid intended to cover the constant operating deficits of such undertakings amount to State aid prohibited by Article 87(1) EC, where:

                           (i)

                           it is not possible to ascertain on the basis of reliable data from the relevant accounts the difference between the costs imputable to the part of the activity of those undertakings in the area covered by the concession and the corresponding income and consequently it is not possible to calculate the additional cost deriving from the performance of public service obligations which, under the terms of the concession, may attract State aid?

                           (ii)

                           the supply of transport services by the said undertakings may, as a result, be maintained or increased, which entails the consequence that the opportunities for other undertakings established in this or in another Member State to provide their transport services may be diminished?

                           (iii)

                           and notwithstanding the provisions of Article 73 of the Treaty?

               (f)

               Having regard to the conditions which the Court of Justice lays down regarding the present Article 87(1) (formerly 92(1)), in particular in its judgment of 24 July 2003 in Case C-280/00 Altmark
                   (2), for classification of State aid (‘First, there must be an intervention by the State or through State resources. Second, the intervention must be liable to affect trade between Member States. Third, it must confer an advantage on the recipient. Fourth, it must distort or threaten to distort competition.’), what is the meaning and scope of the expressions (i) conferring of an advantage (ii) which distorts competition, in a situation in which the beneficiaries have exclusive rights for public passenger transport services in the cities of Lisbon and Oporto but also operate links to those cities, in areas where other operators are also active? In other words, what criteria must we apply in order to be able to conclude that the conferring of an advantage distorts competition? In that connection, is it relevant to ascertain the percentage of costs which, as far as the undertakings are concerned, is attributable to transport services operating outside the area of exclusivity? In short, is it necessary that the aid has repercussions on the activity carried on outside the exclusivity area (Lisbon and Oporto) in clearly significant terms?

               (g)

               Is the intervention by the Commission provided for in Articles 76 and 88 of the Treaty the only legal way of enforcing the Treaty rules on State aid or does the effectiveness of Community law additionally require, in particular, the possibility of direct application of those rules by the national courts at the request of those private individuals who consider themselves to be adversely affected by the grant of a subsidy or aid contrary to the competition rules?

      (1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ English Special Edition: Series I Chapter 1969(I), p. 276).

      (2)  C-280/00, [2003] ECR I-7810.


title: Case C-277/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France) — Société thermale d'Eugénie-les-Bains v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie (VAT — Scope — Deposits, paid in the context of contracts relating to supplies of services subject to VAT, which are retained by the provider in the event of cancellation — Classification)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État, France) — Société thermale d'Eugénie-les-Bains v Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie
   (Case C-277/05) (1)

   (VAT - Scope - Deposits, paid in the context of contracts relating to supplies of services subject to VAT, which are retained by the provider in the event of cancellation - Classification)
   (2007/C 211/07)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société thermale d'Eugénie-les-Bains

      Defendant: Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de l'Industrie
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) — Interpretation of Article 2(1) 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) — Scope — Deposits paid in the context of contracts for supplies of services subject to value added tax, which are retained by the service provider on cancellation — Classification as remuneration for a reservation service or as a cancellation payment.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Articles 2(1) and 6(1) 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 are to be interpreted as meaning that a sum paid as a deposit, in the context of a contract relating to the supply of hotel services which is subject to value added tax, is to be regarded, where the client exercises the cancellation option available to him and that sum is retained by the hotelier, as a fixed cancellation charge paid as compensation for the loss suffered as a result of client default and which has no direct connection with the supply of any service for consideration and, as such, is not subject to that tax.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005.


title: Removal from the register of C-24/96

text:
No C 199/20              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 6 . 97
            Removal from the register of C-6/96 (')                                Removal from the register of C-34/96 (')
                             ( 97/C 199/47)                                                       ( 97/C 199/51
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-6/96 ( Reference for a                       from the register of Case C-34/96 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Sandro Gallotti .                                                against Maria Paolantoni .
H OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                             H OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .
             Removal from the register of C-7/96 (')                     Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-165/96,
                             ( 97/C 199/48 )                                   C-166/96, C-167/96, C-168/96 and C-169/96 (M
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/52 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  By order of 13 March 1997 the President of the Fifth
from the register of Case C-7/96 ( Reference for a                       Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Joined Cases C-165/96, C-166/96 , C-167/96, C-168/96
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             and C-169/96 : Commission of the European Communities
against Francesco Palermo.                                               v. Portuguese Republic .
(') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                           (') OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-24/96 (')                               Removal from the register of C-189/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/49                                                        ( 97/C 199/53 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-24/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-189/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Vittorio Iannilli .                                              against Rosalinda Marchionne .
 ( 1 ) OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                        O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7 . 1996 .
            Removal from the register of C-25/96 H                                 Removal from the register of C- 190/96 (')
                              ( 97/C 199/50 )                                                      ( 97/C 199/54 )
 By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                  By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
 from the register of Case C-25/96 ( Reference for a                      from the register of Case C-190/96 ( Reference for a
 preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                     preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
 Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
 Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings             Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
 against Francesco Cannizzaro .                                           against Amerigo Alari .
  H OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .                                           O OJ No C 210, 20 . 7. 1996 .


title: Case C-325/12: Order of the President of the Court of 5 November 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 November 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-325/12) (1)

   2013/C 108/49
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case T-196/10: Action brought on 29 April 2010 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green and white cross)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/46

         Action brought on 29 April 2010 — Apotheke DocMorris v OHIM (Representation of a green and white cross)
   (Case T-196/10)
   2010/C 179/81
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Apotheke DocMorris Holding GmbH (Stuttgart, Germany) (represented by Y. Dick, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 February 2010 in Case R 470/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a green and white cross, in respect of goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21, 25, 29, 30, 32, 35-42 and 44 — Application No 5 930 979.

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application.

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

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), as the Board of Appeal’s assessment in relation to establishing distinctiveness was incorrect in a number of respects.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-164/08: Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission (Languages — Notices of open competition for the recruitment of doctors — Full publication in three official languages — Information concerning the notices of open competitions — Publication in all official languages — Language of the tests — Choice of second language from three official languages)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 September 2013 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-164/08) (1)

   (Languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of doctors - Full publication in three official languages - Information concerning the notices of open competitions - Publication in all official languages - Language of the tests - Choice of second language from three official languages)
   2013/C 313/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented: initially by F. Díez Moreno, and subsequently by N. Díaz Abad and J. García-Valdecasas Dorrego, abogados del Estado)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Notice of open competition EPSO/AD/125/08 (AD 7 and AD 9) to constitute a reserve list of doctors, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 February 2008 (OJ 2008 C 48 A, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the notices of open competition EPSO/AD/125/08 (AD 7 and AD 9) to constitute a reserve list of doctors, published in the English, French and German versions of the Official Journal of the European Union of 21 February 2008;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Italian Republic and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 21.6.2008.


title: Case C-136/07: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC — Recognition of diplomas and professional education and training — Profession of air traffic controller)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-136/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC - Recognition of diplomas and professional education and training - Profession of air traffic controller)
   (2008/C 313/07)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M Muñoz Pérez, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Council Directives 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) — Taking up the profession of air traffic controller.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, in connection with the profession of air traffic controller, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration and Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.


title: Action brought on 30 December 1998 by Transportacion Maritima Mexicana S.A. de C.V. and Tecomar S.A. de C.V. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-214/98) (1999/C 71/63)

text:
13.3.1999             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 71/33
(c) order the Commission to pay the Applicant's costs;            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and
                                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
(d) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the         those raised in Case T-191/98 (Atlantic Container Line
     Applicant in providing a bank guarantee or other             e.a./Commission).
     security in lieu of payment of the fine pending
     judgment by the Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                  Action brought on 30 December 1998 by Transportacion
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to              Maritima Mexicana S.A. de C.V. and Tecomar S.A. de
those raised in Case T-191/98 (Atlantic Container Line            C.V. against the Commission of the European
e.a./Commission).                                                                         Communities
                                                                                (Case T-214/98)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/63)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 29 December 1998 by Nippon Yusen
Kaisha against the Commission of the European                     An action against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                              Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                  Instance of the European Communities on 30 December
                       (Case T-213/98)
                                                                  1998 by Transportacion Maritima Mexicana S.A. de C.V.
                        (1999/C 71/62)                            and Tecomar S.A. de C.V., represented by Alfred Merckx,
                                                                  Sinclair Roche & Temperley, and John Pheasant, Nicholas
                                                                  Bromfield and Matthew Levitt, Lovell White Durrant,
               (Language of the case: English)                    Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                  the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Instance of the European Communities on 29 December
1998 by Nippon Yusen Kaisha, represented by Nicholas
                                                                  (a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
Forwood and Philip Ruttley QC of the English Bar and
                                                                       proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC
John Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Matthew Levitt of
                                                                       Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference
Lovell White Durrant, Solicitors, with an address for
                                                                       Agreement);
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &
Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
                                                                  (b) in any event, annul the fines imposed on the
                                                                       Applicants or substantially reduce such fines by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            amounts considered appropriate by the Court in all
                                                                       the circumstances;
(a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
     proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC          (c) order the Commission to pay the Applicants' costs;
     Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference               and
     Agreement);
                                                                  (d) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
(b) in any event, annul the fine imposed on it or reduce               Applicants in providing a bank guarantee or other
     such fine by the amount considered appropriate by the             security in lieu of payment of the fine pending
     Court in all the circumstances;                                   judgment by the Court.
(c) order the Commission to pay the Applicant's costs;            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and
                                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
                                                                  those raised in Case T-191/98 (Atlantic Container Line
(d) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
                                                                  e.a./Commission).
     Applicant in providing a bank guarantee or other
     security in lieu of payment of the fine pending
     judgment by the Court.


title: Case C-392/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Notaries — Nationality requirement — Article 51 TFEU — Connection with the exercise of official authority)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/16

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-392/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Notaries - Nationality requirement - Article 51 TFEU - Connection with the exercise of official authority))
   (2017/C 104/24)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and K. Talabér-Ritz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and M. Tátrai, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, J. Vláčil and D. Hadroušek, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by imposing a nationality requirement for access to the notarial profession, Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU;

               2.

               Orders Hungary to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic to bear its own costs

      (1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.


title: Case T-192/08: Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Transnational Company Kazchrome and ENRC Marketing v Council

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/26

         Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ and ENRC Marketing v Council
   (Case T-192/08)
   (2008/C 197/46)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Transnational Company ‘Kazchrome’ (TNK Kazchrome) (Aktobe, Kazakhstan) and ENRC Marketing AG (Kloten, Switzerland) (represented by: L. Ruessmann and A. Willems, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               To declare the application admissible;

               —

               to annul Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia as far as it applies to the applicants;

               —

               order the Council to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicants.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, who produce and sell ferro-silicon to the market of the European Union, seek partial annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 172/2008 (1) of 25 February 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ferro-silicon originating in the People's Republic of China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Russia.
   In support of their application, the applicants submit that they are directly and individually concerned by the contested regulation and that the anti-dumping duty imposed by the said regulation is the result of several manifest errors of assessment, manifest errors of fact and breaches of the Basic Regulation (2) (‘the Basic Regulation’) as well as of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The applicants further argue that the defendant failed to state reasons as required by Article 253 EC.
   On the basis of the first plea, the applicants submit that the Council failed to properly distinguish between effects caused by other known factors from any injury caused by the targeted imports and, thus, the Council's findings violate Articles 3(2), 3(6) and 3(7) of the Basic Regulation.
   On the basis of their second plea, the applicants advance that the anti-dumping duty was adopted on the basis of an erroneous assessment of Community interest and in violation of Articles 9(4) and 21 of the Basic Regulation.
   On the basis of their third plea, it is submitted that although the applicants provided verifiable information to the institutions, they were allegedly treated as non-cooperating, the Council failed to check the facts used against available information which was brought to their attention and failed to carry out a proper market economy treatment within the time-limits imposed by the Basic Regulation.
   On the basis of the fourth plea, the applicants contend that their rights of defence have been violated in the course of the investigation.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 55, p. 6.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case C-268/14 P: Appeal brought on 30 May 2014 by Italmobiliare SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2014 in Case T-305/11 Italmobiliare SpA v European Commission

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/21

         Appeal brought on 30 May 2014 by Italmobiliare SpA against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 14 March 2014 in Case T-305/11 Italmobiliare SpA v European Commission
   (Case C-268/14 P)
   2014/C 282/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Italmobiliare SpA (represented by: M. Siragusa, F. Moretti and L. Nascimbene, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment in its entirety, with all the consequences that entails, including annulment of the contested decision;

               —

               In so far as they may be considered appropriate and necessary, order the measures of organisation of procedure and/or the measures of inquiry referred to in Articles 62 and 64, respectively, of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs, including those incurred before the General Court; and

               —

               In the alternative, where the above is not possible, refer the case back to the General Court for the implementation of any measures of inquiry or organisation of procedure not already arranged by the Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1

               First ground of appeal: the General Court erred in its identification of the addressee of the contested decision
               By its first ground, Italmobiliare challenges the argument endorsed by the General Court that Italmobiliare might reasonably be assumed to have access to the information sought. It also argues that the General Court seriously distorted the facts and erred in its application of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations by not considering that the Commission’s earlier conduct and written assurances were likely to give rise to the legitimate expectation that Italmobiliare would not be concerned by the contested decision. Lastly, it is submitted that the judgment of the General Court is vitiated by a complete failure to state reasons with regard to Italmobiliare’s plea alleging breach of the principle of non-discrimination because it does not examine the argument put forward by Italmobiliare to demonstrate that it is the only financial holding company to be involved in the procedure as an addressee of the request for information under Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003. (1)

               2

               Second ground of appeal: the General Court’s reasoning when examining the plea alleging that the Commission infringed Article 296 TFEU is contradictory and illogical
               By its second ground, Italmobiliare argues that the reasoning used by the General Court is contradictory and illogical inasmuch as, while recognising that the Commission’s statement of reasons is inadequate as regards the object and purpose of the request, that Court considers it to be comprehensive if read in the context of the reasoning set out in the opening decision, even though that decision does not add anything in terms of substance to the content of the contested decision. Italmobiliare also submits that the statement of reasons in the contested decision, subsequently reproduced in the judgment under appeal, is incomplete as regards the necessity of the information sought and the choice of using as an instrument the decision referred to in Article 18(3) of Regulation No 1/2003.

               3

               Third ground of appeal: the General Court erred in its application of Article 101 TFEU and Article 18(1) and (3) of Regulation No 1/2003 by failing to recognise that the contested decision is ultra vires

               By its third ground, Italmobiliare contests the analysis carried out by the General Court in relation to the claim that the Commission lacked the power to adopt the contested decision. It argues that the General Court essentially failed to take into consideration the evidence provided by Italmobiliare in support of its claim, and did not adopt any measures of organisation of procedure in order to investigate the evidence which, according to the Commission, justified the request for information.

               4

               Fourth ground of appeal: the statement of reasons relating to the examination of the plea alleging breach of the principle of proportionality is inadequate, contradictory and illogical
               By its fourth ground, Italmobiliare submits that inadequate and/or contradictory reasoning was used in the following areas relating to the Commission’s alleged breach of the principle of proportionality: (i) the unsuitability of the request for information as a means of pursuing the objective set in the present case; (ii) the excessive cost of the efforts that the company is required to make in preparing a response to the request for information; and (iii) the breach of the ‘more moderate means’ criterion, which requires the objectives of an investigation always to be pursued through the adoption of measures which involve only minor sacrifices on the part of the addressees as regards their legal rights.

               5

               Fifth ground of appeal: the statement of reasons relating to the alleged infringement of the right to be heard is inadequate
               By its fifth ground, Italmobiliare submits that the statement of reasons provided in the judgment under appeal in relation to the alleged infringement of the right to be heard is inadequate. It argues that the General Court was wrong to hold that the ‘way’ in which the Commission conducts a consultation may escape judicial review solely on the ground that the Commission was under ‘no obligation’ to proceed in that manner.

      (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 (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).


title: Case T-120/09: Action brought on 27 March 2009 — Phoenix-Reisen and DRV v Commission

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/21

         Action brought on 27 March 2009 — Phoenix-Reisen and DRV v Commission
   (Case T-120/09)
   2009/C 297/31
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Phoenix-Reisen GmbH (Bonn, Germany) and Deutscher Reiseverband eV (DRV) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Gerharz and A. Funke, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 13 February 2009 by which it refused to take action against State aid granted by the Federal Republic of Germany in the form of insolvency payments;

               —

               In the alternative, reinterpret the action for annulment as an action for failure to act, in the event that the Court should take the view that the present proceedings must take the form of an action for failure to act.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants’ action is directed against the Commission’s letter (reference D/50594) of 13 February 2009 concerning its complaint in connection with insolvency benefit payments to undertakings and with the financing of the payment of insolvency benefit in the Federal Republic of Germany (CP 79/2007 — Alleged State Aid in the form of insolvency benefit payments). In that letter the Commission states repeatedly that there is in its view no infringement of the provisions on State aid.
   In support of their claim, the applicants maintain that the contested measures cannot be justified under Directive 80/987/EEC. (1) Furthermore, the Commission’s refusal to take action against the alleged wrongdoing infringes Community law. That rejection also cannot be justified by the decisions of the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court).

      (1)  Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23)


title: Case T-227/00: Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Far Eastern Textiles Ltd. against the Council of the European Union

text:
C 316/34              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.11.2000
Action brought on 28 August 2000 by Far Eastern Textiles                Pleas in law and main arguments
       Ltd. against the Council of the European Union
                                                                        The factual and legal framework is similar to that in cases
                         (Case T-227/00)                                T-220/00, T-223/00 and T-224/00.
                         (2000/C 316/64)
                                                                        The applicants’ sole submission is that the amount of the fine
                                                                        imposed on them by the decision violates several rules and
                                                                        principles of Community law and should be substantially
                  (Language of the case: English)                       reduced. The specific claims of the applicants are the following:
An action against the Council of the European Union was                 —     the application of the new fining rules violates fundamen-
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                    tal principles of legal certainty
Communities on 28 August 2000 by Far Eastern Textiles Ltd.,
represented by Philippe De Baere of Van Bael & Bellis, Brussels.
                                                                        —     the failure to take into account the EEA lysine turnover
                                                                              of the applicants violates the principle of proportionality
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     in determining the starting point for the fine, the
—     annul Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EC)                       Commission did not correctly assess the considerable
      No. 978/2000 to the extent that they affect the applicant;              disparity between the sizes of the undertakings concerned
      and,                                                                    and, as a result, discriminated against the applicants
—     order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                        —     the Commission has incorrectly applied the Leniency
                                                                              Notice (1) with regard to the applicants and thereby denied
                                                                              the applicants the substantial reduction in the fine to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               which they are entitled
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                —     in determining the fine imposed on the applicants, the
invoked in case T-226/00, Nan Ya Plastics/Council.                            Commission has failed to take into account, as an
                                                                              attenuating circumstance, the limited extent to which the
                                                                              applicants implemented the offending agreements.
                                                                        (1) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines
                                                                            in cartel cases, OJ C 207, of 18 July 1996, p. 4.
Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Daesang Corpor-
ation and Sewon Europe GmbH against the Commission
                of the European Communities
                         (Case T-230/00)
                         (2000/C 316/65)
                                                                        Action brought on 31 August 2000 by Adriatica di
                                                                        Navigazione SpA and the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’
                  (Language of the case: English)                            against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                          (Case T-231/00)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 August 2000 by Daesang
                                                                                (2000/C 316/66)
Corporation and Sewon Europe GmbH, represented by Jean-
François Bellis, Andrzej Kmiecik and Stephanie Reinart of Van
Bael & Bellis, Brussels.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     reduce the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      by Commission Decision C (2000) 1565 final of 7 June              European Communities on 31 August 2000 by Adriatica di
      2000; and                                                         Navigazione SpA and the Comitato ‘Venezia vuole vivere’,
                                                                        represented by Mario Siragusa and Francesca Maria Moretti, of
—     order the Commission to bear the costs.                           the Rome and Venice Bars.


title: Case T-251/12: Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — EGL and Others v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — International air freight forwarding services — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU — Price fixing — Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price — Definition of the market — Effect on trade between Member States — Cooperation — Partial immunity from a fine)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — EGL and Others v Commission
   (Case T-251/12) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price - Definition of the market - Effect on trade between Member States - Cooperation - Partial immunity from a fine))
   (2016/C 136/34)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: EGL, Inc. (Houston, Texas, United States), Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd (Ashby de la Zouch, United Kingdom) and Ceva Freight Shanghai Ltd (Shanghai, China) (represented initially by M. Brealey QC, S. Love, Barrister, M. Pullen, D. Gillespie and R. Fawcett-Feuillette, Solicitors, and subsequently by M. Brealey, S. Love, M. Pullen, R. Fawcett-Feuillette and M. Boles, Solicitor, and lastly by M. Brealey and M. Pullen)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and P. Van Nuffel, acting as Agents, and by S. Kingston, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicants or, in the alternative, for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders EGL, Inc., Ceva Freight (UK) Ltd and Ceva Freight Shanghai Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case C-308/14: Action brought on 27 June 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/2

         Action brought on 27 June 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-308/14)
   2014/C 329/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: D. Martin, M. Wilderspin, agents)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the United Kingdom, by the requirement that a claimant for Child Benefit or Child tax Credit have a right to reside in the United Kingdom, has failed to comply with its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1);

               —

               order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission maintains that in requiring a claimant of Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit to have a right to reside in the United Kingdom as a condition of being treated as resident there, the United Kingdom has imposed a condition that Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 does not permit.
   Alternatively the Commission submits that by imposing a condition of entitlement to social security benefits that is automatically met by its own nationals the United Kingdom has created a situation of direct discrimination against nationals of other Member States and thus breached article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems OJ L 166, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom), the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France)) — Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen (C-113/10), British Sugar plc v Rural Payments Agency, an Executive Agency of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (C-147/10), and Tereos — Union de coopératives agricoles à capital variable v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers (C-234/10) (Common agricultural policy — Common organisation of the markets — Producers of sugar and of isoglucose — Calculation of production levies — Validity of a method of calculation taking into account fictitious refund amounts for those quantities of sugar exported without refund — Retroactive effect of the legislation — Exchange rate — Award of interest)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom), the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (France)) — Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen (C-113/10), British Sugar plc v Rural Payments Agency, an Executive Agency of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (C-147/10), and Tereos — Union de coopératives agricoles à capital variable v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers (C-234/10)
   (Joined Cases C-113/10, C-147/10 and C-234/10) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Common organisation of the markets - Producers of sugar and of isoglucose - Calculation of production levies - Validity of a method of calculation taking into account fictitious refund amounts for those quantities of sugar exported without refund - Retroactive effect of the legislation - Exchange rate - Award of interest)
   2012/C 366/13
   Language of the case: German, English, French

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division), and the Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Zuckerfabrik Jülich AG (C-113/10), British Sugar plc (C-147/10), Tereos — Union de coopératives agricoles à capital variable (C-234/10)

      Defendants: Hauptzollamt Aachen (C-113/10), Rural Payments Agency, an Executive Agency of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (C-147/10), Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects, Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects de Gennevilliers (C-234/10)

      Re:

   (C-113/10)
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Dusseldorf — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1) in the light of the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Retroactivity of that regulation — Method for calculating the production levies
   (C-147/10)
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, No (EC) 1175/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005 and 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1) — Repayment of amounts levied on the basis of invalid Community regulations — Determination of the applicable exchange rate
   (C-234/10)
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre — Validity, having regard to Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 2001 L 178, p. 1), of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 (OJ 2009 L 321, p. 1) — Fixing of production levies in the sugar sector — Determination of average loss

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Commission Regulation (EC) No 1193/2009 of 3 November 2009 correcting Regulations (EC) No 1762/2003, (EC) No 1775/2004, (EC) No 1686/2005, (EC) No 164/2007 and fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for marketing years 2002/2003, 2003/2004, 2004/2005, 2005/2006 is invalid, with the exception of Article 3 thereof, which has already been annulled as a result of the annulment, by the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 29 September 2011 in Case T-4/06 Poland v Commission, of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1686/2005 of 14 October 2005 setting the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the 2004/05 marketing year.

               2.

               In the absence of provisions of European Union law on the matter, it is for the domestic legal system of the Member State concerned to determine the applicable exchange rate for calculating the compensation payable in respect of overpayments of production levies in the sugar sector.

               3.

               Under European Union law, individuals entitled to reimbursement of sums paid unduly in respect of production levies in the sugar sector determined on the basis of an invalid regulation are also entitled to payment of the interest on such sums. A national court cannot use its discretion to refuse payment of interest on the sums levied by a Member State on the basis of an invalid regulation on the ground that that Member State cannot reclaim the corresponding interest on the European Union’s own resources.

      (1)  OJ C 134, 25.5.2010; OJ C 148, 5.6.2010; OJ C 221, 14.8.2010.


title: Case C-346/14: Action brought on 18 July 2014  — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/3

         Action brought on 18 July 2014 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-346/14)
   2014/C 361/03
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and G. Wilms, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 288 TFEU, in so far as by granting permission for the construction of a hydropower plant on the Schwarze Sulm (Black Sulm) it incorrectly applied the provisions of Article 4(1) in conjunction with Article 4(7) of the Water Framework Directive (1) (WFD);

               —

               order Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Austria sees to avoid the prohibition of deterioration which is laid down in Article 4(1) as a fundamental principle and thereby failed to satisfy the conditions for receiving an exception under Article 4(7) WFD.
   The application of the directive ratione temporis is based on the Court’s case-law, according to which during the period allowed for transposition of a directive, Member States must refrain from taking any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed by the directive (Article 4(3) TEU in conjunction with Article 288 TFEU).
   The defendant bases its new decision solely on an amended assessment of the water status of the Schwarze Sulm. That amended classification (‘good’ water status instead of ‘very good’ water status) is not compatible with the original management plan. Findings and assessments in the management plan may not simply be amended as the result of an ad-hoc administrative decision based on new criteria. Otherwise, fundamental substantive provisions of the Water Framework Directive, such as in this case the prohibition of deterioration, and important procedural provisions, such as those on public participation, could be easily avoided.

      (1)  Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1).


title: Case T-240/03: Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cecil Sharkey against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 239/18                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         4.10.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Action brought on 30 June 2003 by Société des Produits
                                                                              Nestlé S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                                (Case T-248/03)
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.
                                                                                (2003/C 239/36)
                                                                              (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                              of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: English)
Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Cecil Sharkey against
        the Commission of the European Communities                            An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
                                                                              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                             (Case T-240/03)
                                                                              30 June 2003 by Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., Vevey,
                                                                              Switzerland, represented by Mr J. Evrard, lawyer.
                            (2003/C 239/35)
                                                                              Grupo Kalise Menorquina, S.A. was also a party to the
                      (Language of the case: English)                         proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
                                                                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                              —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
European Communities on 13 June 2003 by Cecil Sharkey,
                                                                                28 April 2003;
Clogherhead, (Ireland), represented by P. Gallagher and A.
Collins, Barristers, and D. Barry, Solicitor.
                                                                              —     order for payment of all costs of the proceedings against
                                                                                the OHIM.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the decision contained in Article 2 of Commission
       Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the               Pleas in law and main arguments
       Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take
       into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea,
       hygiene, product quality and working conditions for                    Applicant for the Com-         Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.
       vessels of more than 12 m in length overall notified                   munity trade mark:
       under document number C(2003) 1113 to reject a safety
       capacity application in respect of the MFV Endurance;                  Community trade mark           The figurative mark ‘POLO POLO’
                                                                              sought:                        (application No 803429) for
—      order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-                                               goods in class 30 (a.o. cocoa and
       ings.                                                                                preparations having a base of
                                                                                cocoa, chocolate products, con-
                                                                                fectionery, sweets, sugar, chewing
                                                                                gum).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              Proprietor of mark or          Grupo Kalise Menorquina S.A.
                                                                              sign cited in the oppo-
                                                                              sition proceedings:
The applicant invokes the same pleas in law as in Case T-218/
03 (1).
                                                                              Mark or sign cited in          The Spanish national word mark
                                                                              opposition:                    ‘POLOS’ for goods in the old
( 1) See p. 9 of this Official Journal.                                                                      Spanish class 7 (a.o. ice creams,
                                                                                cocoas, chocolate products, cara-
                                                                                mels, general confectionery prod-
                                                                                ucts).


title: Case T-95/08: Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/44

         Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-95/08)
   (2008/C 92/87)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2007) 6514 of 20 December 2007, notified on 21 December 2007, in so far as it excludes from Community financing and charges to the budget of the Italian Republic the financial consequences to be applied in connection with clearance of the expenditure financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Italian Government brings the present action against Commission Decision C(2007) 6514 of 20 December 2007 in so far as it excludes from Community financing and charges to the budget of the applicant the financial consequences to be applied in connection with clearance of the expenditure financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
   In support of its claims, the applicant submits:

               —

               As regards aid for products processed from fruit and vegetables, infringement of Article 30(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2003 of 29 August 2003 laying down detailed rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as regards the aid scheme for products processed from fruit and vegetables (OJ 2003 L 218, p. 14).

               —

               As regards the purchase of bovine animals aged over 30 months intended for destruction, infringement of Article 5(5) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2777/2000 of 18 December 2000 adopting exceptional support measures for the beef market (OJ 2000 L 321, p. 47) and of Article 4 of Commission Decision 97/735/EC of 21 October 1997 concerning certain protection measures with regard to trade in certain types of mammalian animal waste (OJ 1997 L 294, p. 7).

               —

               As regards the tobacco premium system, infringement of Article 9(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 of 30 June 1992 on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco (OJ 1992 L 215, p. 70) and Articles 11 and 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/98 of 22 December 1998 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 075/92 (OJ 1998 L 358, p. 17).


title: Case T-76/02: Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Mara Messina against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 109/68             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.5.2002
     ments of public education. Such one-sided funding                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
     distorts competition and affects trade between the Mem-
     ber States.                                                         —     annul the Commission’s first refusal of access to docu-
                                                                               ments communicated to the applicant by letter of
—    Infringement of the principle of equality under Article 12                19       December        2001,        prot.      D/55293
     EC: exclusive funding of public bodies dispensing occu-                   COMP/G1/PI/cpbD(01)1704 and the second refusal of
     pational and technical education introduces unlawful                      access pursuant upon the absence of any reply to the
     discrimination against the private bodies dispensing occu-                applicant’s confirmatory application sent to the Secretary-
     pational training, inasmuch as that discrimination is not                 General of the Commission by letter of 14 January 2002;
     necessitated by any overriding public interest.                     —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                               pay the costs of these proceedings.
—    Infringement of the principle of subsidiarity.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         In this action, the applicant challenges the defendant’s refusal
                                                                         to grant access to certain documents relating to the State aid
                                                                         regime which was the subject of the Commission’s decision of
Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Mara Messina                          2 August 2000 concerning measures to promote investment
  against the Commission of the European Communities                     in less-favoured regions of Italy referred to in Law
                                                                         No 488/1992 (State Aid no N 715/99).
                        (Case T-76/02)                                   —     In support of that claim, the applicant argues infringe-
                                                                               ment of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of
                      (2002/C 109/127)                                         the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May
                                                                               2001 regarding public access to European Parliament,
                                                                               Council and Commission documents in that:
                  (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         —     no reply was given within the prescribed time-limit to the
                                                                               confirmatory application concerning the application for
                                                                               access;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               —     disclosure of the documents requested would in no way
European Communities on 18 March 2002 by Mara Messina,                         harm the public interest in protecting inspections and
represented by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese.                                    investigations or court proceedings.


title: Case T-12/16: Order of the General Court of 7 October 2016 — Slovenia v Commission (EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Slovenia — Adoption of Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/38

         Order of the General Court of 7 October 2016 — Slovenia v Commission
   (Case T-12/16) (1)

   ((EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Slovenia - Adoption of Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/1059 - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 006/47)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Slovenia (represented by: L. Bembič, acting as agent)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Rous Demiri and D. Triantafyllou, acting as agents)

      Re:

   Application based on Article 263 TFEU and seeking the annulment of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/2098 of 13 November 2015 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2015 L 303, p. 35), in so far as that decision concerns the Republic of Slovenia.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Republic of Slovenia.

      (1)  OJ C 98, 14.3.2016.


title: Case C-356/13: Action brought on 26 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/38

         Action brought on 26 June 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Poland
   (Case C-356/13)
   2013/C 344/66
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Manhaeve and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Poland

      Form of order sought

   The European Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing adequately to define the waters liable to be polluted by nitrates from agricultural sources, and by insufficiently designating vulnerable zones, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 3 of, in conjunction with Annex I to, Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources; (1)

               —

               declare that, by establishing action programmes, within the terms of Article 5 of Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, on the basis of inadequately designated specific vulnerable zones, and by including in those programmes measures demonstrating deficiencies in the light of Annex II, point A.2, and Annex III, point 1.1 and 1.3, the Republic of Poland has failed to meet its obligations under Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II, point A.2, and Annex III, point 1.1 and 1.3 to, that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Poland to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Poland was under an obligation to complete transposition of Directive 91/676/EEC and to comply with the obligations resulting therefrom from the date of its accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1.


title: Case T-225/13: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/60

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T&L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission
   (Case T-225/13) (1)

   (2017/C 144/83)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 22.6.2013.


title: Case T-849/16: Action brought on 4 December 2016 — PGNiG Supply & Trading v Commission

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/42

         Action brought on 4 December 2016 — PGNiG Supply & Trading v Commission
   (Case T-849/16)
   (2017/C 038/56)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: PGNiG Supply & Trading GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: M. Jeżewski, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 28 October 2016 concerning amendments to the conditions of the exemption from the requirement to apply certain requirements of EU law to the OPAL gas pipeline;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on 14 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights and incorrect assessment of the act initiating the procedure concerning the amendment of the previous exemption of the OPAL gas pipeline from the requirement to apply certain requirements of EU law, granted in 2009 by a decision of the German energy regulator, the Bundesnetzagentur.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging lack of competence to take a decision amending the exemption of the OPAL gas pipeline from the requirement to apply certain requirements of EU law.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging incorrect interpretation of the condition of eligibility for exemption of the gas infrastructure in Article 36(1) in conjunction with Article 2(17) of Directive 2009/73/EC.

                           —

                           In accordance with Article 36(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC, an exemption may be granted only in the case of interconnectors, LNG facilities and storage facilities. However, an ‘interconnector’ is a transmission line which crosses or spans a border between Member States for the sole purpose of connecting the national transmission systems of those Member States.

                           —

                           The OPAL gas pipeline is not an ‘interconnector’ because it connects with the Gazelle pipeline that runs through Czech territory and is therefore a gas transit pipeline, transporting gas collected from OPAL back to Germany.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging incorrect interpretation of the condition of eligibility for exemption of the gas infrastructure in Article 36(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 2(33) of Directive 2009/73/EC.

                           —

                           The condition for the grant of a regulatory exemption for major new gas infrastructure is that the level of risk attached to the investment in that infrastructure is such that the investment would not take place unless the regulatory exemption is granted.

                           —

                           The investment in the construction of the OPAL gas pipeline was finally realised and completed on 13 July 2011, therefore, it cannot be said that any further such risk exists.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging incorrect interpretation of the condition of eligibility for exemption of the gas infrastructure in Article 36(1)(a) and (e) of Directive 2009/73/EC and, as a consequence, finding that the amendment of the regulatory exemption of the OPAL gas pipeline does not adversely affect competition on the gas market.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging incorrect interpretation of the condition of eligibility for exemption of the gas infrastructure in Article 36(1)(a) of Directive 2009/73/EC and, as a consequence, finding that the amendment of the regulatory exemption of the OPAL gas pipeline enhances the security of the supply of gas in the internal market.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging failure on the part of the Bundesnetzagentur to have regard to the provisions of Article 102 TFEU in relation to deciding on the exemption under Article 36 of Directive 2009/73/EC.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging breach of the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law alleging breach of the principle of proportionality.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, alleging favourable treatment of the infrastructure that is the subject of the exemption, the status of which is incompatible with EU law.

               11.

               Eleventh and twelfth pleas in law, alleging infringement of, respectively, Article 274 and Article 254 of the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part.

               12.

               Thirteenth plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 7 TFEU by the adoption of a decision which is contrary to other policies of the European Union.

               13.

               Fourteenth plea in law, under Article 277 TFEU, alleging invalidity of Article 2(33) in conjunction with Article 36(1) of Directive 2009/73/EC, by the arbitrary introduction of a discriminatory distinction between infrastructure covered by the regulatory exemption and remaining infrastructure that is not eligible for such exemption.


title: Case C-242/05: Order of the Court of 3 June 2005 (Fourth Chamber) (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — G.M. van de Coevering v Hoofd van het District Douane Roermond van de rijksbelastingdienst (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom to provide services — Leasing of a motor vehicle in a Member State other than the State of residence — Tax on non-registered vehicles which are made available to residents — Detailed rules for charging tax)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/16

         Order of the Court of 3 June 2005 (Fourth Chamber) (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — G.M. van de Coevering v Hoofd van het District Douane Roermond van de rijksbelastingdienst
   (Case C-242/05) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Freedom to provide services - Leasing of a motor vehicle in a Member State other than the State of residence - Tax on non-registered vehicles which are made available to residents - Detailed rules for charging tax)
   (2006/C 224/29)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch
   Parties

      Applicant: G.M. van de Coevering

      Defendant: Hoofd van het District Douane Roermond van de rijksbelastingdienst
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch — Interpretation of Articles 49 EC to 55 EC — National legislation providing for the levy of a tax on vehicles registered in the territory and on vehicles not registered but made available to persons residing in that Member State — Motor vehicle hired in another State by a person residing in the State in which the tax is levied — Full tax levied with no account taken of the duration of the hire or use of the vehicle on the territory of that State
   Operative part of the order
   Articles 49 EC to 55 EC preclude national legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires a natural person established in that Member State who hires a vehicle registered in another Member State to pay the full amount of registration tax on commencement of use of the highway in the first Member State by that vehicle, irrespective of the duration of the use of that highway, and denying the person in question any right to an exemption or a refund when it is neither intended that the vehicle essentially be used in the first Member State on a permanent basis nor is the vehicle in fact used in that manner.

      (1)  OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.