title: Case T-303/00: Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Manuel Francisco Caballero Montoya against Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.12.2000            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 372/11
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Action brought on 18 September 2000 by Verde Sport
                                                                          SpA and Others against Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                       of 5 October 2000                                                   (Cases T-274/00 and T-296/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 372/23)
in Case T-202/99: Léon Rappe v Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(Officials — Promotion — Staff report — Delay in its                      ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                             drafting)                                    European Communities on 18 September 2000 by Verde
                                                                          Sport SpA and Others, represented by Alfredo Bianchini, of
                                                                          the Venice Bar.
                        (2000/C 372/22)
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul Commission Decision 2000/394/EEC of 25 No-
                                                                                vember 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by
                                                                                way of relief from social security contributions under
                  (Language of the case: French)                                Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995;
                                                                          —     in the alternative, annul the abovementioned decision in
                                                                                so far as it requires recovery of the relief granted;
In Case T-202/99: Léon Rappe, an official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Orp-Jauche                       —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
(Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and
V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
SARL, 13 Avenue du Bois, against Commission of the
European Communities (Agents: F. Duvieusart-Clotuche and
B. Wägenbaur) — application, first, for annulment of the                  The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade               Cases T-234/00 Fondazione Opera S. Maria della Carità v
A 6 in the course of the 1998 promotion procedure and,                    Commission and T-235/00 Codess Sociale and Others (1).
second, for damages — the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi and
M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the           (1) Not yet published.
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to
      grade A 6 in the course of the 1998 promotion procedure is
      annulled;
                                                                          Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Manuel Francis-
                                                                          co Caballero Montoya against Commission of the Euro-
                                                                                pean Communities
2.    The remainder of the application is dismissed;
                                                                                (Case T-303/00)
3.    The Commission shall bear the costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 372/24)
(1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.99.                                                                     (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 22 September 2000 by Manuel
                                                                          Francisco Caballero Montoya, residing in Brussels represented
                                                                          by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia.
 ---pagebreak--- C 372/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.12.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —     misuse of powers by the defendant.
—     annul the decision adopted on 13 December 1999 by the
      Commission’s Pensions Unit, in accordance with the
      earlier requests of 23 August 1999, 22 September 1999
      and 3 December 1999;
—     review of the applicant’s file, in view of the transfer of her     Action brought on 9 October 2000 by Viking-
      pension rights, by the Transfer of Pension Rights Section          Umwelttechnik Ges.m.b.H. against the Office for Harmon-
      of the Commission Pensions Unit following receipt of                isation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs)
      the interest arising from enforcement of a judgment,
      transferred by the Spanish social security;                                                 (Case T-316/00)
—     order any calculation necessary in respect of the abov-                                     (2000/C 372/25)
      ementioned transfer;
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
—     order the Commission to compensate the applicant
      pursuant to the general implementing provisions (GIP)
      by paying interest at a rate of 3.5 % per annum, calculated        An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      on the basis of the capital sum required to ensure the             Market (Trade marks and Designs) was brought before the
      number of years of pensionable service with which she is           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      to be credited under the Staff Regulations in respect of           9 October 2000 by Viking-Umwelttechnik Ges.m.b.H. Kuf-
      the periods to which such interest relates;                        stein (Austria), represented by Stefan Völker of Gleiss Lutz
                                                                         Hootz Hirsch Rechtsanwälte, Stuttgart (Germany).
—     order the repayment to the applicant of any amount                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
      overpaid as a result of the difference between the
      transferable capital sum together with interest of all kinds       —     annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 28 July
      and the capital sum required to ensure payment together                  2000 in Case R 558/1999-1 relating to the application
      with interest payable to the Commission; and                             for registration as a Community trade mark No 459 149;
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             —     order the Office for Harmonisation to pay the applicant’s
                                                                               costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Mark:                          Colour mark claiming green (Pan-
The present action has been brought against the decision                                                tone 369c) and grey (Pantone
allegedly contained in a memorandum sent to the applicant                                               428u)         —      Application
dated 13 December 1999, adopted in the context of credit                                                No 459 149
for pensionable service reckoned pursuant to the general
provisions implementing Article 11(2) of the Staff Regulations,          Goods or services:             Goods in Class 7 (include garden
with regard to the years during which contributions had been                                            choppers, mowers, hedge cutters,
paid to the Spanish social security scheme, and, in particular,                                         rotary machines, ploughs,high
calculation of the interest arising from the amount overpaid                                            pressure cleaning apparatus)
on transferring pension rights.
                                                                         Decision         contested     Refusal by the examiner to register
                                                                         before the Board of
                                                                         Appeal:
In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         Pleas in law:                  — misapplication of Article
                                                                                7(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC)
—     infringement of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII of the the                                                No 40/94
      Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communi-
      ties and its implementing provisions, so far as concerns                                          — misapplication of Article
      Article 77 et seq thereof.                                                                            7(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 40/94
—     breach of the principles of subsidiarity, non-discrimi-
      nation and protection of legitimate expectations.


C 20/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 22.1.2000
       Removal from the register of Case T-11/96 (1)                           Removal from the register of Case T-306/97 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/58)                                                          (2000/C 20/61)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                         (Language of the case: English)
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth               By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Case T-11/96: Donald George Gage and David John Gage v                  Case T-306/97: M.C. Lewis, M.A. Lewis and D.C. Lewis v
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                     Council of the European Union and Commission of the
European Communities.                                                   European Communities.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.                                               (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-304/97 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case T-90/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/59)                                                          (2000/C 20/62)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        By order of 25 October 1999, the President of the First
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth               Chamber, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                        Case T-90/98: Assidomän Kraft Products AB, AB Iggesund
Case T-304/97: W.J.C. Hilsdon v Council of the European                 Bruk, Korsnäs AB, Modo Paper AB, Södra Cell AB, Stora
Union and Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        Kopparbergs Bergslags AB, Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA) v
                                                                        Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
                                                                        (1) OJ C 234 of 25.7.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case T-305/97 (1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case T-135/98 (1)
                        (2000/C 20/60)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/63)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
By order of 10 November 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  By order of 22 October 1999, the Court of First Instance of
Communities has ordered the removal from the register of                the European Communities (single judge) has ordered the
Case T-305/97: Jimmy Hull v Council of the European Union               removal from the register of Case T-135/98: Elaine Spence v
and Commission of the European Communities.                             Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                               (1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.


title: Case F-107/15: Action brought on 23 July 2015 — ZZ v EESC

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/53

         Action brought on 23 July 2015 — ZZ v EESC
   (Case F-107/15)
   (2015/C 320/74)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: EESC (European Economic and Social Committee)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision retiring the applicant with effect as of 31 December 2014 and the decision rejecting his request to extend his service.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 7 April 2014 of the Secretary General of the EESC retiring the applicant with effect as of the evening of 31 December 2014;

               —

               annul the decision of 30 September 2014 of the Director of Human Resources and Internal Services refusing, by a power delegated from the appointing authority, to concede to his request, brought on 3 September 2014, for the extension of his occupational activity until 31 May 2015;

               —

               annul so far as necessary the decision of 22 April 2015 of the Secretary General of the EESC rejecting the complaint brought on 22 December 2014 by the applicant against the decisions of 7 April and 30 September 2014;

               —

               order the EESC to pay the costs.


title: Case C-152/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Holger Forstmann Transporte GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Münster (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Exceptions — Energy products contained in the standard tanks of commercial motor vehicles and intended to be used as fuel by those vehicles — Definition of ‘standard tanks’ within the meaning of Article 24(2) of that directive — Tanks fitted by a coachbuilder or a manufacturer’s dealer)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 10 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Holger Forstmann Transporte GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Münster
   (Case C-152/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Exceptions - Energy products contained in the standard tanks of commercial motor vehicles and intended to be used as fuel by those vehicles - Definition of ‘standard tanks’ within the meaning of Article 24(2) of that directive - Tanks fitted by a coachbuilder or a manufacturer’s dealer))
   2014/C 409/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Holger Forstmann Transporte GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Münster

      Operative part of the judgment

   The term ‘standard tanks’, referred to in the first indent of Article 24(2) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, must be interpreted as not excluding tanks fixed permanently to commercial motor vehicles intended for the direct supply of fuel to those vehicles when the tanks have been fitted by a person other than the manufacturer, in so far as the tanks enable fuel to be used directly, both for the purpose of propulsion of the vehicles and, where appropriate, for the operation, during transport, of refrigeration systems and other systems.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2002 in Case C-319/01: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environment — Directive 97/11/EC)

text:
C 7/6                    EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          11.1.2003
(Agents: G. de Bergues and D. Colas): Application for a                       (Agents: initially F. van de Craen, and, subsequently, A. Snoecx):
declaration that, by failing in sufficient measure to classify as             Application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws,
special protection areas the territories most suitable for the                regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
conservation of the species of wild bird referred to in Annex I               with Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending
to Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the                        Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of
conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), as amended                  certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ
by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of 29 July 1997 (OJ 1997                     1997 L 73, p. 5) or, alternatively, by failing to communicate
L 223, p. 9), and of migratory species, and, in particular, by                them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
failing to classify a sufficiently large area of land on the Plaine           to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Sixth
des Maures (France) as a special protection area, the French                  Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), Presi-
Republic has failed to comply with its obligations under the                  dent of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, F. Macken and
Directive and has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC               J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;
Treaty, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                               R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 November
J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rap-                  2002, in which it:
porteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                  1.    Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the
given a judgment on 26 November 2002, in which it:                                  period prescribed all the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 97/11/
1.    Declares that, by not in sufficient measure classifying as special            EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the
      protection areas the territories most suitable for the conservation           assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects
      of the species of wild bird referred to in Annex I to Council                 on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
      Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of                   its obligations under that directive.
      wild birds, as amended by Commission Directive 97/49/EC of
      29 July 1997, and of migratory species, and, in particular, by          2.    Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
      not classifying a sufficiently large area of the Plaine des Maures
      (France) as a special protection area, the French Republic has
      failed to comply with its obligations under Article 4(1) and (2)        (1 ) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.
      of that directive;
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 5 November 2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              in Case C-204/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                     the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Tilmann Klett v Bundes-
                                                                                ministerin für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur (1)
                       of 19 November 2002
                                                                              (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Freedom to
in Case C-319/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         provide services — Directives 78/686/EEC and 93/16/EEC
                  ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)                               — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
                                                                              evidence of formal qualifications — Access to training as a
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                        dental practitioner — Act of Accession of the Republic of
Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the environ-                                                Austria)
                   ment — Directive 97/11/EC)
                                                                                (2003/C 7/11)
                            (2003/C 7/10)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-204/01 P: reference to the Court under Article 234
In Case C-319/01, Commission of the European Communities                      EC from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
(Agents: G. zur Hausen and J. Adda) v Kingdom of Belgium                      ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between


title: Case C-259/08: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds — Preservation and maintenance of habitats — Classification of special protection areas — Prohibition of hunting and capture — Incorrect transposition)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-259/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 79/409/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Preservation and maintenance of habitats - Classification of special protection areas - Prohibition of hunting and capture - Incorrect transposition)
   (2009/C 55/07)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: E. Skandalou, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Article 3(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1) — Incorrect transposition of Article 3(2), Article 4(1), Article 5 and Article 8(1) of that directive
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take all the measures necessary to transpose fully and/or correctly the obligations under Article 3(1) and (2), Article 4(1), Article 5 and Article 8(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209 of 15.8.2008.


title: Case T-231/00: Action brought on 31 August 2000 by Adriatica di Navigazione SpA and the Comitato "Venezia vuole vivere" against Commission of the European Communities

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.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 316/35
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               Action brought on 4 September 2000 by Chef Revival
                                                                          USA Inc against the Office for Harmonisation in the
—     annul the whole of the decision                                                               Internal Market
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-232/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2000/C 316/67)
The decision being contested in the present case is the same as
that at issue in Case T-218/00 Cooperativa Mare Azzurro and
Others (1). The applicants are an undertaking which has been
entrusted with the public service tasks relating to routes                (Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
considered essential for maintaining the links necessary for                   of the Rules of Procedure — application drafted in English)
the transportation of persons and goods, and a Committee
(‘comitato’) created under Article 93(2) whose object is to
coordinate any action necessary to oppose Commission initiat-
                                                                          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
ives and to draw up proposals to relieve the disadvantages
                                                                          Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
burdening business in Venice.
                                                                          European Communities on 4 September 2000 by Chef Revival
                                                                          USA Inc, represented by Neil Jenkins of Bird & Bird, London.
In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that the              Other parties before the Board of Appeal: Massague Marin.
following have been infringed or misapplied:
—     the first paragraph of Article 87 of the Treaty inasmuch
      as there is no threat to competition or trade between               The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Member States, and, specifically so far as concerns
      Adriatica, the applicants point out the non-aid nature of
      the reduction of and exemption from social security                 —     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the
      contributions in question, in view of the services provided               Office of 26 June 2000, as corrected on 6 July 2000 in
      by it;                                                                    case R 181/1999-3;
—     the second and third paragraph of Article 87 so far as
      concerns:                                                           —     order the Office to reject Opposition No. B 4392; and
      (a)    the misclassification of the reduction and exemption
             in question as regional aid;                                 —     order the Office to pay the applicant’s costs.
      (b) the erroneous application of the principles relating
             to employment aid; and
      (c)    the misassessment of its compatibility with the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
             common market in cases other than those listed in
             the operative part.
—     the third paragraph of Article 87 so far as concerns the            Applicant of the Com-          Chef Revival USA Inc.
      failure to assess and provide for special cases in respect          munity trade mark:
      of undertakings other than those under Articles 1, 3 and
      4 of the operative part, in relation to which the reduction         Trade mark concerned:          Figurative mark (Chef) — Appli-
      and exemption in question could be categorised as lawful                                           cation No. 77974 for certain
      and compatible with the common market.                                                             goods in classes 8, 21 and 25
—     Article 253 of the Treaty in so far as concerns the
                                                                          Proprietor of an oppos-        Massague Marin
      characterisation of the reduction and exemption in
                                                                          ing trade mark or sign:
      question as State aid and their being deemed incompatible
      with the common market.
                                                                          Opposing trade mark or         National figurative mark (Cheff)
Finally, the applicants claim that the order for recovery of the          sign:                          for the same products of class 25
aid is unlawful.
                                                                          Decision of the Oppo-          Rejection of the opposition
                                                                          sition Division:
(1) Not yet published.
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                          Appeal:                        Opposition Division


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2004 in Case C-269/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel): Administration de l'enregistrement et des domains, État du grand-duché de Luxembourg v Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg SARL (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13(C) — Exemption of transactions of leasing or letting of immovable property — Right of option for taxation — Deduction of input tax — Obtaining prior approval of the tax authorities)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 9 September 2004
   in Case C-269/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel): Administration de l'enregistrement et des domains, État du grand-duché de Luxembourg v Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg SARL (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13(C) - Exemption of transactions of leasing or letting of immovable property - Right of option for taxation - Deduction of input tax - Obtaining prior approval of the tax authorities)
   (2004/C 262/21)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-269/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour d'appel (Luxembourg), by decision of 18 June 2003, received on 20 June 2003, in the proceedings brought by Administration de l'enregistrement et des domains, État du grand-duché de Luxembourg v Vermietungsgesellschaft Objekt Kirchberg SARL — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 September 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The provisions of subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph and of the second paragraph of Article 13(C) 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 do not preclude a Member State, which has exercised the power to allow taxpayers a right of option for taxation on leasing or letting transactions of immovable property, from adopting legislation which makes full deduction of the input VAT paid conditional upon non-retroactive, prior approval of the tax authorities.

      (1)  OJ C 200 of 23.8.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 October 2002 in Case T-180/00: Astipesca, SL v Commission of the European Communities (Fisheries — Reduction of Community financial aid — Action for annulment — Articles 44 and 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 — Principle of proportionality — Action for compensation)

text:
21.12.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 323/31
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 8 October 2002
                        of 17 October 2002
                                                                          In Joined Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/
                                                                          00: Métropole télévision SA (M6) and Others v Com-
in Case T-180/00: Astipesca, SL v Commission of the
                   European Communities ( 1)                                        mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Competition — Decision granting exemption — Television
(Fisheries — Reduction of Community financial aid —                       rights — Eurovision system — Article 81(1) and (3) EC —
Action for annulment — Articles 44 and 47 of Regulation                                    Manifest error of assessment)
(EEC) No 4028/86 and Article 7 of Regulation (EEC)
No 1116/88 — Principle of proportionality — Action for
                           compensation)                                                          (2002/C 323/49)
                                                                                (Languages of the case: French, Spanish and Portuguese)
                          (2002/C 323/48)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          In Joined Cases T-185/00, T-216/00, T-299/00 and T-300/00,
                                                                          Métropole télévision SA (M6), established in Neuilly-sur-Seine
                                                                          (France), represented by D. Théophile, lawyer, with an address
                                                                          for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-185/00,
                                                                          Antena 3 de Televisión SA, established in Madrid (Spain),
                                                                          represented by F. Pombo García, E. Garayar Gutiérrez and
In Case T-180/00, Astipesca, SL, established in Huelva (Spain),           R. Alonso Pérez-Villanueva, lawyers, with an address for service
represented by J.-R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier and                     in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-216/00, Gestevisión
M.D. Domínguez Pérez, lawyers, v Commission of the Euro-                  Telecinco SA, established in Madrid, represented by S. Muñoz
pean Communities (Agents: initially L. Visaggio, and, sub-                Machado and M. López-Contreras Gonzalez, lawyers, with an
sequently, S. Pardo Quintillán and J. Guerra Fernández):                  address for service in Luxembourg, applicant in Case T-299/
Application for, first, annulment of the Commission’s fax of              00, SIC — Sociedade Independente de Comunicação SA,
5 May 2000 informing the applicant of the payment, on 4 May               established in Linda-a-Velha (Portugal), represented by C. Bo-
2000, of part of the balance of the financial aid granted to              telho Moniz, lawyer, , supported by Deutsches SportFernsehen
project SM/ESP/20/92 and of the contents of the Commission’s              GmbH (DSF), established in Ismaning (Germany), represented
letter of 18 May 2000, reducing the abovementioned aid and,               by K. Metzlaff, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
second, compensation on the grounds of the allegedly unlawful             bourg, in Case T-299/00, and by Reti Televisive Italiane Spa
suspension of payment of the balance of that aid and of the               (RTI), established in Rome (Italy), represented by G. Amorelli,
abovementioned reduction, the Court of First Instance (Third              lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, in Case
Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and              T-300/00, v Commission of the European Communities
J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the             (Agents: in Case T-185/00: K. Wiedner and B. Mongin; in
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 October 2002, in which              Cases T-216/00 and T-299/00: K. Wiedner, E. Gippini Fournier
it has ruled:                                                             and J. Rivas Andrés, and in Case T-300/00: Wiedner and
                                                                          M. França), supported by Union européenne de radio-télévision
                                                                          (UER), established in Grand-Saconnex (Switzerland), represen-
                                                                          ted by D. Waelbroeck and M. Johnsson, lawyers, with an
1.     Dismisses the application;                                         address for service in Luxembourg, in Cases T-185/00, T-216/
                                                                          00, T-299/00 and T-300/00, and by Radiotelevisión Española
                                                                          (RTVE), established in Madrid, represented by J. Gutiérrez
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.                             Gisbert, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, in
                                                                          Cases T-216/00 and T-299/00: Application for annulment of
                                                                          Commission Decision 2000/400/EC of 10 May 2000 relating
                                                                          to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case
                                                                          IV/32.150 — Eurovision) (OJ 2000 L 151, p. 18), the Court
( 1) OJ C 259 of 9.9.2000.
                                                                          of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition),
                                                                          composed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung,
                                                                          P. Mengozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
                                                                          Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                          8 October 2002, in which it:


title: Case C-685/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — EV v Finanzamt Lippstadt

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/18

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster (Germany) lodged on 27 December 2016 — EV v Finanzamt Lippstadt
   (Case C-685/16)
   (2017/C 144/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Münster

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EV

      Defendant: Finanzamt Lippstadt

      Question referred

   Are the provisions regarding the free movement of capital and payment transactions in Article 63 et seq. of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding Paragraph 9 No 7 of the Gewerbesteuergesetz 2002, as amended by the 2008 Jahressteuergesetz (annual tax act) of 20 December 2007 (BGBl. I 2007, 3150) in so far as those provisions cause the trade tax deduction of the profit and add-backs by the amount of the profits from shares in a capital company whose management and registered office are located outside the Federal Republic of Germany to be tied to stricter requirements than for the deduction of the profit and the add-backs by the amount of the profits from shares in a non-tax-exempt domestic capital company or by that part of the trade earnings of a domestic undertaking allocated to a permanent establishment not located in Germany?


title: Case C-393/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Word mark HELLIM — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark HALLOUMI — Opposition dismissed)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/49

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-393/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Word mark HELLIM - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark HALLOUMI - Opposition dismissed)
   2013/C 225/87
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias (represented by: C. Milbradt and A. Schwarz, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 June 2012 in Case T-534/10 Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias v OHIM — Garmo (HELLIM) by which the General Court dismissed an action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2010 relating to opposition proceedings between Organismos Kypriakis Galaktokomikis Viomichanias and Garmo AG — Likelihood of confusion — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Foundation for the Protection of the Traditional Cheese of Cyprus named Halloumi is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 10.11.2012.


title: Case T-345/10: Action brought on 25 August 2010 — Portuguese Republic v Commission

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/32

         Action brought on 25 August 2010 — Portuguese Republic v Commission
   (Case T-345/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/56
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and J. Saraiva de Almeida, Agents, assisted by M. Figueiredo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Primarily:
               annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4255 final of 29 June 2010 concerning the application of financial corrections to assistance from EAGGF Guidance to the operational programme CCI 1999.PT.06.1.PO.007 (Portugal — National Objective 1 programme) for the measure ‘Investments in agricultural holdings’, which reduced by EUR 16 411 829,46 the contribution of EAGGF Guidance to the expenditure awarded under Commission Decision C(2000) 2878 of 30 October 2000, under the operational programme CCI 1999.PT.06.1.PO.007 (Portugal — National Objective 1 programme); and

               —

               In the alternative:

                           1.

                           annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4255 final of 29 June 2010, in so far as it relates to Community financing of the expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic regarding applications approved between 28 October 2003 and November 2006, which amount to EUR 194 347 574,29;

                           2.

                           annulment of Commission Decision C(2010) 4255 final of 29 June 2010, in so far as it relates to Community financing of the expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic regarding applications referring to ‘investments in agricultural holdings’ associated with the setting-up of young farmers, which amount to EUR 94 621 812,06.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant invokes the following grounds of appeal:

               (a)

               infringement of Article 250 TFUE and lack of competence;

               (b)

               infringement of Article 39(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/99 of 21 June 1999, (1)

               (c)

               retroactive application of Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/99 of 17 May 1999, (2)

               (d)

               infringement of Article 4(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002, (3)

               (e)

               infringement of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001, (4)

               (f)

               infringement of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1257/99;

               (g)

               breach of the principle of equality;

               (h)

               breach of the principle of equality and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations and error as to the financial consequences to be drawn from the infringement of the Community rules;

               (i)

               breach of the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 80).

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 445/2002 of 26 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 2002 74, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards the management and control systems for assistance granted under the Structural Funds (OJ 2001 L 63, p. 21)


title: Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-156/95)

text:
  12 . 8 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 208/3
           EEC/USA agreement concluded under GATT, if it is              Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
           found that the contested Regulation is based on               Belgium against the Commission of the European
           those provisions .                                                                         Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-155/95 )
  — As regards the improper exclusion of the overshoot of                                            ( 95/C 208/06 )
       the MGA by the Portuguese producers from the
       calculation of the overall overshoot of the Specific Basic
       Area allocated to the Community as a whole :                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
       — The exclusion of Portugal from the benefit of                   European Communities on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
           weighting of the overshoot of the Specific Base Area          Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director of
           in the Community as a whole has no basis in Article           Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign
           5 ( 1 ) ( f) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/92 , as            Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, acting
           amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 232/94 which                 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
           applied the Blair House Agreement within the                  Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins .
           Community; it infringes Article 6 of that agreement;
           it also contravenes the principle of equality as
           between the Member States regarding enjoyment of              The applicant claims that the Court should :
           the benefits deriving from Community legislation,
           according to which no exclusion of any of them is             — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 479/95 of
           justified; and the exclusion is discriminatory in that it           1 March 1995 introducing transitional measures for the
           is based on the nationality of certain producers .                  application of the tariff quota arrangements for the
                                                                               import of bananas as a result of the accession of Austria,
  (•) OJ No L 36 , 16 . 2 . 1995 , p . 2 .                                     Finland and Sweden for the second quarter of 1995 and
  (2 ) OJ No L 181 , 1 . 7. 1992 , p . 12,                                     order the Commission to pay the costs ( x ).
  (•') OJ No L 30, 3 . 2 . 1994 , p . 7.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
                                                                         the same as those relied on against Regulation ( EC )
                                                                         No 3303/94 in Case C-71 /95 ( 2 ).
                                                                         (») OJ No L 49 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 18 .
  References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                   ( 2 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 , p. 13 .
  Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by
  orders of that court of 25 March 1995 ( C-154/95 ), 3 April
  1995 ( C-157/95 ), 3 May 1995 ( C-174/95 ), 27 April 1995
  ( C-175/95 ) and 10 May 1995 ( C-176/95 ) in the criminal
  proceedings pending before that court against Isidoro
  Narducci, Fulvio Smaldone, Siro Mattei, Bruno Belli and
                           Armando Scrocca
  ( Cases C-154/95 , C-157/95 , C-174/95 , C-175/95 and
                                                                         Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
                                C-176/95 )
                                                                         Belgium against the Commission of the European
                             ( 95/C 208/05 )                                                          Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-156/95 )
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                             ( 95/C 208/07 )
  European Communities by orders of the Pretura
  Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distraccata di Tivoli ( Rome
  District Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division ) of 25 March             An action against the Commission of the European
  1995 ( C-154/95 ), 3 April 1995 ( C-157/95 ), 3 May 1995               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
  ( C-174/95 ), 27 April 1995 ( C-175/95 ) and 10 May 1995               European Communities on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
  ( C-176/95 ), which were received at the Court Registry on             Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Flead of Department
  15 May 1995 ( C-154/95 ), 19 May 1995 ( C-157/95 ), 6 June             at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and
  1995 ( C-174/95 and C-175/95 ) and 7 June 1995                         Cooperation with Developing Countries, with an address
  ( C-176/95 ), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                 for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des
  proceedings pending before that court against Isidoro                  Girondins .
£
  Narducci, Fulvio Smaldone, Siro Mattei, Bruno Belli     .
                                                               and
  Armando Scrocca on questions which are identical with
  those in Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-151/95 (*).                   The applicant asks the Court to annul Commission
                                                                         Regulation ( EC ) No 510/95 of 7 March 1995 on the
  (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                         exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff
                                                                         quota for imports of bananas during the first quarter of
                                                                          1995 as a result of tropical storm Debbie (*) and order the
                                                                          Commission to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/4                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     12 . 8 . 95
The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are                        return on an investment, the behaviour of an investor
the same as those relied upon with regard to Regulation                           operating under normal market conditions . The
(EC ) No 2791 /94 in Case C- 9/95 (2 ).                                           estimated costs of insolvency ( shareholder loans,
                                                                                dismantling installations, ground clearance ) would
(•) OJ No L 51 , 8 . 3 . 1995 , p . 8 .                                           be clearly higher than the cost of withdrawing and
( 2 ) OJ No C 54 , 10 . 3 . 1995 , p . 9 .                                        compensating for losses . The desire to protect an
                                                                                image must also be included as falling under the
                                                                                criterion of return on investment in its widest sense .
                                                                                Moreover, when making a comparison with the
                                                                                conduct of a hypothetical pri\*ate investor regard
                                                                                must also be had to the situation in the particular
Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Federal Republic of                          Member State ; the particular social, legal and
Germany against the Commission of the European                                    economic conditions in the Federal Republic of
                              Communities                                         Germany, like the principle enshrined in the Basic
                           ( Case C-158/95 )                                      Law that ownership involves social responsibility,
                                                                                must not be disregarded,
                             ( 95 /C 208/08 )
                                                                             — the payment of DM 20 million to the
An action against the Commission of the European                                  Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH is the making available of
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                        risk capital in accordance with normal investment
European Communities on 22 May 1995 by the Federal                                practice under market conditions,
Republic of Germany, represented by Dr Ernst Roder,
Ministerialrat, Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs,                        — the sum of DM 56 million for particular items of
D-53107 Bonn .
                                                                                expenditure was covered by the Commission's
                                                                                approval of the support measures in August
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                      1988/June 1989 . The basis for those measures was
                                                                                the 1987 Framework Agreement, of which the
1 . declare void the Commission's decision of 4 April 1995                        Commission was aware, and the agreement in it to
      concerning a proposed State aid by the Federal State of                     transfer the assets without burdens of the past
      Bavaria      to    the     EGKS-Stahlunternehmen       Neue                 ('Altlasten'). It is a misuse of powers for the
      Maxhiitte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg, and                          Commission now to claim that the aids concerned
      Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH , Meitingen-Herbertshofen                              are not capable of approval ,
       ( COM(95 ) 814 final );
                                                                         — breach of the principle of proportionality: the financial
2 . order the defendant to pay the costs .                                   measures in question have only minimal effects on the
                                                                             Community steel market. The undertaking's share of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          total crude steel production in the ECSC was 0,2 % in
                                                                              1993 . The undertaking's range of products has hardly
— Insufficient statement of reasons ( Article 15 , first                     any supraregional importance .
      paragraph, of the ECSC Treaty): the Bavarian
      Government has explained on numerous occasions that
      the proposed payment to the pro rata loss compensation
      is an act of a shareholder voluntarily introducing its own
      capital ( in order to increase capital reserves for the
      purpose of setting them off against the loss carry-over ).         Action brought on 22 May 1995 by the Commission of the
      The Commission refuses to regard the cases given by                   European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      way of example as adequate proof that taking over losses
      in order to protect an image is the conduct of an investor                                 ( Case C-159/95 )
      operating under market conditions . The Commission                                           ( 95/C 208/09 )
      also starts out from incorrect findings of fact and
      wrongly evaluates the facts,                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
— infringement of the right to be heard : The Commission
      has not heard the views of the Bavarian Government as
                                                                         22 May 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande, of
      regards its intention to treat the injection by Bavaria as a       its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      ' lost subsidy' ( verlorener ZuschuS ); in its notice OJ No
                                                                         at the office of Yiorgos Kremlis, of its Legal Service, Wagner
      C 377, p. 3 it had found that in order to privatize the
      State 's shares the Bavarian Government intended to
                                                                         Centre, Kirchberg.
      make a pro rata contribution to compensate for losses as
      an 'injection' into the equity of the company,                     The applicant claims that the Court should :
— infringement of Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC Treaty:                    — declare that, by omitting to adopt and communicate to
                                                                              the Commission within the requisite period of time the
      — the injection of capital of DM 125,7 million in order                 laws, regulations and administrative provisions
           to compensate for losses is, from the point of view of             necessary in order to comply with Council Directive


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/35

         Removal from the register of Case C-436/02 (1)

   (2004/C 94/96)
   By order of 22 January 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-436/02: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 2 May 1996 in Case C-253/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/50/EEC)

text:
No C 180/ 16               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    22 . 6 . 96
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   Republic (Agents : Ioanna Galani-Maragkoudaki and
                             (Fifth Chamber )                            Dimitra Tsagkaraki ) — application for a declaration that,
                                                                         by failing to adopt or to communicate to the Commission
                             of 2 May 1996                               within the prescribed period the necessary laws, regulations
in Case C-253/95 : Commission of the European                            and administrative provisions to comply with Council
        Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany                       Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                   coordination of procedures for the award of public service
                         Directive 92/50/EEC)                            contracts ( OJ No L 209, 1992, p. 1 ), the Hellenic Republic
                                                                         has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty — the
                                96/C 180/31 )                            Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward,
                  (Language of the case: German)                         President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, P. Jann
                                                                         ( Rapporteur ), L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges; C. O.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be             Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
            published in the European Court Reports)                     judgment on 2 May 1 996 , in which it:
In Case C-253/95 : the Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Claudia Schmidt ) v. the Federal
Republic of Germany ( Agents: Ernst Rôder and Bernd                      1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Kloke ) — application for a declaration that, by failing to                  period the necessary laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions to comply with Council
adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
needed in order to comply with Council Directive                             Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of                    coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                             service contracts, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
procedures for the award of public service contracts ( OJ No
                                                                             fulfil its obligations under Article 44 (1 ) of that
L 209, 1992 , p . 1 ) and, in the alternative, by failing to                 Directive .
inform the Commission forthwith of the measures taken,
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the
EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 44 ( 1 ) of that                   2 . Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Directive — the Court ( Fifth Chamber), composed of
D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J. -P.
                                                                         (') OJ No C 315 , 25 . 11 . 1995 .
Puissochet, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), L. Sevôn and M.
Wathelet, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R.
Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May 1996, in which
it :
1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
       period, the laws, regulations and administrative
       provisions needed in order to comply with Council
       Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
       coordination of procedures for the award of public
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
       service contracts, the Federal Republic of Germany has
       failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 44 (1 ) of that                            of 14 March 1996
       Directive.
                                                                         in Case C-31/95 P: Sergio Del Plato v. Commission of the
2 . Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                      European Communities C )
       costs .                                                           (Official — Appeal manifestly inadmissible — Lack ofpleas
                                                                                in law)
0 ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                ( 96/C 180/33 )
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                             of 2 May 1996
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in      Case    C-311/95 : Commission of the             European                 published in the European Court Reports)
               Communities v. Hellenic Republic (*)
     (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 92/50/EEC)
                              ( 96/C 180/32 )                            In Case C-31/95 P : Sergio Del Plato ( Represented by: Luigi
                                                                         Bonomi ) — appeal against the order of the Court of First
                   (Language of the case: Greek)                         Instance of the European Communities ( First Chamber ) of
                                                                         7   December     1994     in   Case  T-242/94   Del  Plato    v.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                     Commission [ 1994] ECR-SC 11-961 , seeking to have that
                                                                         order set aside, the other party to the proceedings being the
In Case C-311 /95 : Commission of the European                           Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Communities (Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Hellenic                   Gianluigi Valsesia ) — the Court ( Second Chamber ),


title: Case C-439/11 P: Appeal brought on 25 August 2011 by Ziegler SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Case T-199/08 Ziegler v Commission

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/8

         Appeal brought on 25 August 2011 by Ziegler SA against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 16 June 2011 in Case T-199/08 Ziegler v Commission
   (Case C-439/11 P)
   2011/C 347/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Ziegler SA (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, M. Favart, A. Bailleux, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the present appeal is admissible and well-founded;

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 in Case T-199/08 Ziegler v Commission, and give final judgment itself on the subject-matter of the dispute;

               —

               grant the form of order sought at first instance, and, therefore, annul Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services market, or, in the alternative, cancel the fine imposed on the appellant in that decision, or, in the further alternative, substantially reduce that fine;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs both at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on four grounds of appeal in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, the appellant contends that the General Court made several errors in law in that it found in the judgment under appeal that the Commission was lawfully entitled to conclude, by applying its Guidelines on the concept of the effect on trade between Member States, that the infringement which the appellant was found to have committed was liable to have an appreciable effect on trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court misapplied European Union (‘EU’) law, in particular Article 296 TFEU, the fundamental right to a fair hearing and the general principle of equality and non-discrimination, when it held that the Commission did not fail in its obligation to state reasons by relying only on the ‘very serious’ nature of the infringement in order to determine the percentage of sales in relation to the infringement used to calculate the basic amount of the fine imposed on the appellant in accordance with Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. (1)

   By its third ground of appeal, the company Ziegler contends that the judgment under appeal is affected by defects in its reasoning in that it does not deal with the plea alleging that the Commission lacked objective impartiality and infringes the fundamental right to a fair hearing and the fundamental right to sound administration by disregarding that plea.
   By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant claims, lastly, that the judgment under appeal infringes EU law, and in particular the general principle of equality and non-discrimination, in that, while acknowledging that the Commission did not properly analyse the appellant’s financial situation, it does not call into question the fact that the Commission did not even consider the possibility of allowing the appellant to benefit from a reduction of the fine on the basis of paragraph 37 of the Guidelines on the method of setting fines, even though it reduced the fine of another undertaking penalised for the same infringement pursuant to the above-mentioned paragraph.

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


               19.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 372/19

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett, dated 30 August 2013 in the case of Fred. Olsen and others v Staten v/Skattedirektoratet
   (Case E-20/13)
   (2013/C 372/08)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 30 August 2013 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 30 August 2013, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Fred. Olsen and others v Staten v/Skattedirektoratet, on the following questions:

               1.

               Do trusts as a form of establishment fall within the scope of the freedom of establishment provided for in Article 31 of the EEA Agreement?
               Supplementary question: If so, who holds rights pursuant to the provision of the EEA Agreement?

               2.

               Provided that the first main question is answered in the affirmative: Does a trust meet the requirement of economic activity in Article 31 of the EEA Agreement?

               3.

               Provided that the first main question is answered in the negative: Does a trust fall within the scope of the right to free movement of capital provided for in Article 40 of the EEA Agreement?

               4.

               Provided that the first or third main question is answered in the affirmative: Do the Norwegian CFC rules involve one or more restrictions on the freedom of establishment or the right to free movement of capital?

               5.

               Provided that the fourth main question is answered in the affirmative: Can the restrictions be regarded as justified by overriding reasons of public interest, and are the restrictions proportionate?

               6.

               Does the continuous wealth taxation of the beneficiaries for the trust’s assets and taxation at a rate of 1,1 % constitute a restriction pursuant to Article 31 and/or Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — and can this be invoked by the beneficiaries in a trust as described in section 2 of the request for an advisory opinion?

         If the question is answered in the affirmative:

               —

               Can the restriction be regarded as justified by overriding reasons of public interest, and is the restriction proportionate?

               —

               Is the taxation contrary to the requirement of respect for fundamental rights in the EEA Agreement?

               —

               Will it be of importance whether the agreement on the exchange of information between Norway and Liechtenstein has entered into force?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 9 November 1995 in Case C-479/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Vicenza): Andrea Francovich v. Repubblica Italiana (Social policy - Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Scope - Employees whose employer is not subject to procedures to satisfy collectively the claims of creditors)

text:
3 . 2 . 96             EN |              Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 31 / 1
                                                                 I
                                                          (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      applying to all employees, other than those in the
                      of 9 November 1995                                  categories listed in the Annex thereto, whose employers
                                                                          may, under the applicable national law, be made subject
in Case C-479/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 to proceedings involving their assets in order to satisfy
the Pretura Circondariale di Vicenza): Andrea Francovich v.
                                                                          collectively the claims of creditors.
                     Repubblica Italiana (')
(Social policy — Protection ofemployees in the event of the
                                                                    2 . Consideration of the said Directive, to the extent that it
insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987/EEC —
Scope — Employees whose employer is not subject to                        protects only employees whose employers are subject to
 procedures to satisfy collectively the claims of creditors)              proceedings involving their assets in order to satisfy
                                                                          collectively the claims of creditors, has disclosed no
                          ( 96/C 31/01 )                                  factor ofsuch a kind as to affect its validity in the light of
                                                                          the principle of equal treatment.
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    ( 1 ) OJ No C 43 , 12 . 2 . 1994 .
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-479/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Vicenza                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(District Magistrate's Court, Vicenza ), Italy, for a                                     of 14 November 1995
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Andrea Francovich and Repubblica Italiana             in Case C-484/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the
— on the interpretation and vilidity of Article 2 of Council        Luxembourg Conseil d'Etat): Peter Svensson, Lena
Directive    80/987/EEC of 20        October   1980 on the             Svensson v. Ministre du Logement et de l'Urbanisme O
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to          (Free movement ofcapital — Freedom to provide services —
the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of       Interest rate subsidy on building loans — Loan by a credit
their employer ( OJ 1980 No L 283 , p. 23 ) — the Court,            institution not approved in the Member State granting the
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.                                              subsidy)
Kakouris, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch (Presidents of                                          ( 96/C 31 /02 )
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann
( Rapporteur), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                                     (Language of the case: French)
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
on 9 November 1995 , the operative part of which is as                         published in the European Court Reports)
follows :
                                                                    In Case C-484/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 1 . Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on             of the EC Treaty by the Luxembourg Conseil d'Etat for a
     the approximation of the laws of the Member States             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     relating to the protection ofemployees in the event ofthe      court between Peter Svensson, Lena Gustavsson and the
     insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as            Ministre du Logement et de l'Urbanisme — on the


5.7.2003               EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/21
        Removal from the register of Case C-395/01 ( 1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-426/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 158/36)                                                        (2003/C 158/38)
By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of                By order of 27 March 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered
from the register of Case C-395/01 (Reference for a preliminary        the removal from the register of Case C-426/01 (Reference for
ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land                a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’Instance, Vienne): SA
Vorarlberg): Herbert Bregenzer.                                        Société ACCEA Finances v Christian Giner.
( 1) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-417/01 ( 1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-432/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 158/37)
                                                                                (2003/C 158/39)
By order of 25 March 2003 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-417/01 (Reference for a preliminary        By order of 25 March 2003 the President of the Court of
ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Vorarlberg): Herbert Bregenzer.                                        from the register of Case C-432/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
                                                                       Vorarlberg): Helmut Gunz.
( 1) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.


title: Case T-331/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  10 May 2006  — R v Commission (Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2006 — R v Commission
   (Case T-331/04) (1)

   (Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
   (2006/C 165/48)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: R (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: B. Arians, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Joris and H. Kraemer, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the decision relating to the applicant's classification in grade
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.


17.7.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 204/37
        Removal from the register of Case C-27/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-7/99 P (1)
                          (1999/C 204/86)                                                     (1999/C 204/90)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                       By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-27/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                       the register of Case C-7/99 P: Franco Campoli v Commission
from the Tribunale di Genova): Ligure Piemontese SpA (Società
                                                                       of the European Communities.
d’Intermediazione Mobiliare) v Amministrazione delle Finanze
dello Stato.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
( 1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
        Removal from the register of Case C-28/97 (1)                         Removal from the register of Case C-326/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/87)                                                     (1999/C 204/91)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from               By order of 6 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
the register of Case C-28/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
from the Tribunale di Genova): SO.ME.FI Srl v Amministra-              the register of Case C-326/98: Commission of the European
zione delle Finanze dello Stato.                                       Communities v French Republic.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.                                               (1) OJ C 312 of 10.10.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-29/97 (1)
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-320/98 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/88)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/92)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-29/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling       By order of 7 May 1999 the President of the Third Chamber
from the Tribunale di Genova): Società Anonima Immobiliare             of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
Allessandro Srl (SAIA) v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello           ordered the removal from the register of Case C-320/98:
Stato.                                                                 Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                       Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
        Removal from the register of Case C-30/97 (1)
                          (1999/C 204/89)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-73/98 (1)
By order of 30 April 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                                      (1999/C 204/93)
the register of Case C-30/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): SVIN Servizi SpA v               By order of 10 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice
Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.                             of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                       the register of Case C-73/98: Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
(1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 151 of 16.5.1998.