title: Case C-113/00: Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.6.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 176/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein                          May Article 90 EC (formerly Article 95 of the EC Treaty)
Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 15 March 2000                      be interpreted as meaning that such national tax legislation
           in the case of Tulliasiamies v Antti Siilin                       is not discriminatory, taking into account in particular that
                                                                             — the starting point is the tax on an equivalent new car,
                         (Case C-101/00)
                                                                             — under the previous law the tax was reduced only after
                                                                                a period of six months, and
                        (2000/C 176/12)                                      — under both the previous and current law the tax is
                                                                                reduced linearly as described above?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  3. In addition to using the bases of calculation prescribed in
European Communities by an order of the Korkein Hallinto-                    the national tax legislation, is it always necessary to
oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland, of 15 March                  establish a vehicle’s individual characteristics to ensure that
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 17 March                   the levying of motor vehicle tax does not lead, in the
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Tulliasiamies v                individual case, to discrimination contrary to Article 90
Antti Siilin on the following questions:                                     EC (formerly Article 95 of the EC Treaty)?
                                                                        VAT payable on motor vehicle tax
Motor vehicle tax                                                       4. May the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                             tax called VAT payable on motor vehicle tax under
                                                                             Paragraph 5(1) of the Motor Vehicle Tax Law and Para-
1. Under Paragraph 11 of the Autoverolaki (Motor Vehicle                     graph 1(5) of the Arvonlisäverolaki (Value Added Tax Law)
    Tax Law) in determining motor vehicle tax on a vehicle                   is VAT within the meaning of the VAT Directive, taking
    imported as Community goods, the basis of the taxable                    into account that under national legislation the tax is levied
    value is the transaction value of the vehicle for the taxable            exclusively on the basis of motor vehicle tax?
    person. The transaction value is the customs value within
    the meaning of the Customs Code and Implementation
                                                                        5. If the answer to Question 4 is in the negative, may such a
    Regulation so far as applicable.
                                                                             tax nevertheless be regarded as a tax or charge the levying
                                                                             of which is permitted under Article 33 of the VAT
                                                                             Directive?
    May Article 90 EC (formerly Article 95 of the EC Treaty)
    be interpreted as meaning that such national legislation
    relating to the determination of the taxable value for motor        6. If such national tax provisions are not regarded as contrary
    vehicle tax purposes is not discriminatory, taking into                  to the VAT Directive, may Article 90 EC (formerly Article
    account in particular that the taxable value of a vehicle will           95 of the EC Treaty) be interpreted as meaning that that
    be a different amount depending on which commercial                      those tax provisions are not discriminatory within the
    level the importer of the vehicle operates at, that is,                  meaning of that article?
    whether he operates as a wholesaler, a retailer or a
    consumer?
2. Under Paragraph 7(1) of the Motor Vehicle Tax Law the
    basis of the tax levied on an imported used car is the tax
    on an equivalent new vehicle, with the reductions as laid
    down in that provision. Under the old law 1482/1994, the            Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of
    tax charged on an imported second-hand car was the tax              Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
    on an equivalent new car reduced by 0,5 % for every                                                  ties
    complete calendar month calculated from the time when
    the vehicle had been registered or had been in use for six
    months, and the tax was reduced for only the first 150                                        (Case C-113/00)
    months of use. Under the current law 1160/1998, the tax
    charged on an imported second-hand car is the tax on an
                                                                                (2000/C 176/13)
    equivalent new car reduced by 0,6 % per month of use for
    the first 100 months of use and then for the next 100
    months by 0,9 % per month of use of the residual value              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    calculated at the end of each preceding month, and for              ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    subsequent months of use by 0,4 % of the residual value             Communities on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
    calculated at the end of each preceding month. Months of            represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, with an address for
    use are taken as complete calendar months from when the             service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard
    vehicle was first taken into use or registered.                     Emmanuel Servais.
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.6.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — Infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC: the Commission
                                                                             maintains that any aid the amount of which depends on
                                                                             the quantities produced must be regarded as operating aid
1. annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999
                                                                             which is incompatible with the common market, since it
    concerning aid for horticultural products in Extremadura
                                                                             has no lasting effect on the development of the sector in
    in the 1997/98 marketing year;
                                                                             question. However, the aid neither has, nor is intended to
                                                                             have, the effect of stimulating the production of vegetables,
2. order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                         since it was granted on the basis not of the quantity of
                                                                             vegetables produced but of the quantity intended for
                                                                             industrial processing.
Pleas in law and main arguments
— Infringement of Articles 253 EC and 87(1) EC, on account
    of the absence of a statement of reasons concerning the
    effect on trade between Member States and non-fulfilment
    of the criterion of the existence of such an effect on trade:
    the contested decision lacks even the minimum statement
    of reasons which must be given regarding the effect on
    trade between Member States of aid granted in a form
    which distorts or threatens to distort competition in the
    common market.
                                                                         Action brought on 7 April 2000 by the Commission of
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(a) EC, in conjunction with               the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
    Article 253 EC: the Commission considers that the dero-
    gation contained in Article 87(3)(a) EC is inapplicable
    because the aid was granted not as regional aid but as
    operating aid for the agricultural sector. The Commission’s                                    (Case C-132/00)
    reasoning is inconsistent. The objectives assigned by
    Decree 84/1993 to the grant of incentives for horticultural
    products intended for industrial processing expressly
                                                                                (2000/C 176/14)
    include:
    — adapting production to market requirements in such a
         way as to ensure the most efficient use of resources,           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 April
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    — encouraging diversification of alternative forms of                represented by Lena Ström, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service,
         irrigation, and                                                 and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national expert on
                                                                         secondment to its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
    — promoting development of cultivation having wide-
                                                                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
         spread social effects.
    The aid is intended to promote economic development in
    a region where the standard of living is low and there is            The Commission claims that the Court should:
    serious unemployment. It has a clear social purpose, in that
    it seeks to introduce stable relations between producers
    and processors, protecting them by means of officially               1. declare that, by failing to enact and to notify to the
    approved contracts for the sale and purchase of raw                      Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the measures
    materials and thereby ensuring supplies to the processing                which it was obliged to adopt in order to comply with its
    industries and the location of those industries in the                   obligations under Article 7 of Council Directive
    production areas.                                                        75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194,
                                                                             p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
                                                                             18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), under Article 6 of
    In view of the foregoing, the Commission should have                     Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
    reasoned that the aid did not fall within the scope of                   hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20) and under
    Article 87(3)(a) EC, despite the fact that the measures                  Article 14 of European Parliament and Council Directive
    concerned are specific rather than general. It should also,              94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packag-
    at the very least, have provided justification for its decision,         ing waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10), the Hellenic Republic
    adopted in the exercise of its discretion, not to authorise              has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
    small-scale aid designed to mitigate an abnormally serious
    situation within the Community. By failing to do so, it has
    infringed Article 253 EC.                                            2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case C-83/06: Action brought on  9 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/18

         Action brought on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
   (Case C-83/06)
   (2006/C 86/33)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/103/EC (1) of 7 October 2004 on identity and plant health checks of plants, plant products or other objects listed in Part B of Annex V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC (2), which may be carried out at a place other than the point of entry into the Community or at a place close by, or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of that directive;

               2.

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The prescribed period for implementing the directive expired on 31 December 2004.

      (1)  Official Journal L 313 of 12/10/2004, p. 16.

      (2)  Official Journal L 169 of 10/07/2000, p. 1.


title: Appeal brought on 16 January 1998 by Azienda Agricola 'Le Canne' Srl, a company incorporated under Italian law, established in Porto Viro, against the judgment delivered on 7 November 1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-218/95 between Azienda Agricola 'Le Canne' Srl and Commission of the European Communities (Case C-10/98 P)

text:
28.3.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 94/7
Westbroek, Brussels, with an address for service in                 Azienda Agricola Le Canne' Srl, represented by Giulio
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand                  Schiller, Giuseppe Carraro and Francesca Mazzonetto, of
Rue.                                                                the Padua Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                    at the Chambers of the last named, 62 Avenue Guillaume.
The appellants claim that the Court should:
                                                                    The appellant claims that the Court should:
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    the European Communities of 24 October 1997 (1) in
                                                                    Ð set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First
    Case T-244/94 Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl and
                                                                         Instance and uphold the claims put forward by the
    Others v. Commission,
                                                                         applicant at first instance,
Ð annul Commission Decision 94/259/ECSC of 12 April
    1994 concerning aid to be granted by Italy to the               Ð declare null and void the Commission's                telex
    public steel sector (Ilva group) (OJ L 112, 3.5.1994,                No 12 497 of 27 October 1995,
    p. 64),
                                                                    Ð order the Commission to pay restitution for damage
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 suffered in the amount set out in the application,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð order the Commission to pay the costs incurred at first
                                                                         instance and in the appeal.
Infringement of Community law by the Court of First
Instance, in that it
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð misinterpreted the validity and scope of the Fifth Steel
    Aid Code,                                                       The applicant maintains that the Court of First Instance
                                                                    was wrong to consider that the principle of collegiality
Ð failed sufficiently to take into account that State               was observed. The Court of First Instance should have
    subsidies are no longer indispensable' to attain               declared the rules of procedure of the Commission
    objectives of the ECSC Treaty if they are granted more          inapplicable in so far as they allowed the acting head of
    than once only,                                                 unit to take the decision in question on his own authority.
Ð took no account of the fact that the contested                    It further maintains that the grounds of the Court of First
    Commission decision discloses a serious error of                Instance as to infringement of the principle of the right to
    assessment by the Commission simply because the                 be heard and infringement of the obligation to provide a
    decision makes its aim the strengthening of the Italian         statement of reasons were erroneous and inconsistent.
    steel industry,
                                                                    Finally, it maintains that the Court of First Instance
Ð proceeded from the incorrect assumption that                      infringed and misapplied Articles 44(1) and 47 of
    Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty does not impose a               Regulation (EEC) No 4028/86 (2) and Article 7 of
    strict prohibition of aid, but permits the Community            Regulation (EEC) No 1116/88 (3).
    institutions to approve all aid which may contribute to
    attaining the objectives of the Treaty.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 77, 16.3.1996, p. 11.
                                                                    (2) OJ L 376, 31.12.1986, p. 7.
( ) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 16.
 1
                                                                    (3) OJ L 112, 30.4.1988, p. 1.
Appeal brought on 16 January 1998 by Azienda Agricola
Le Canne' Srl, a company incorporated under Italian law,           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
established in Porto Viro, against the judgment delivered           Tributaria Provinciale di Firenze by order of that court of
on 7 November 1997 by the Court of First Instance of the            23 January 1997 in the case of CSAR Centro Servizi
European Communities in Case T-218/95 between                       Acciai Rivestiti SpA against Direzione Regionale per le
Azienda Agricola Le Canne' Srl and Commission of the               Entrate della Toscana and Ufficio delle Imposte Dirette di
                    European Communities                                                         Firenze
                       (Case C-10/98 P)                                                      (Case C-13/98)
                         (98/C 94/14)                                                         (98/C 94/15)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 November              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European                 European Communities by order of the Commissione Tri-
Communities in Case T-218/95 (1) between Azienda Agri-              butaria Provinciale di Firenze (Provincial Tax Court,
cola Le Canne' Srl and Commission of the European                  Florence) of 23 January 1997, which was received at the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of              Court Registry on 20 January 1998, for a preliminary
the European Communities on 16 January 1998 by                      ruling in the case of CSAR Centro Servizi Acciai Rivestiti


title: Case C-17/06: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2007 — Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Nancy, France — Céline SARL v Celine SA (Trade marks — Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) of First Directive 89/104/EEC — Right of the proprietor of a registered trade mark to oppose the use by a third party of a sign which is identical to the mark — Use of the sign as a company, trade or shop name — Right of the third party to use his name)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/11

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 September 2007 — Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Nancy, France — Céline SARL v Celine SA
   (Case C-17/06) (1)

   (Trade marks - Articles 5(1)(a) and 6(1)(a) of First Directive 89/104/EEC - Right of the proprietor of a registered trade mark to oppose the use by a third party of a sign which is identical to the mark - Use of the sign as a company, trade or shop name - Right of the third party to use his name)
   (2007/C 269/21)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring Party
   Cour d'appel de Nancy
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Céline SARL

      Defendant: Céline SA
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'appel de Nancy — Interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 89/104/EEC: First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1) — Use of a sign identical to a registered word mark as a company name and shop name in connection with the marketing of identical goods.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The unauthorised use by a third party of a company name, trade name or shop name which is identical to an earlier mark in connection with the marketing of goods which are identical to those in relation to which that mark was registered constitutes use which the proprietor of that mark is entitled to prevent in accordance with Article 5(1)(a) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks, where the use is in relation to goods in such a way as to affect or to be liable to affect the functions of the mark.
   Should that be the case, Article 6(1)(a) of Directive 89/104 can operate as a bar to such use being prevented only if the use by the third party of his company name or trade name is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters.

      (1)  OJ C 74, 25.3.2006.


title: Case C-613/13 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-379/10 and T-381/10: Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others, Sanitec Europe Oy v European Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/27

         Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 16 September 2013 in Joined Cases T-379/10 and T-381/10: Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others, Sanitec Europe Oy v European Commission
   (Case C-613/13 P)
   2014/C 52/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, F. Ronkes Agerbeek, agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Keramag Keramische Werke AG and Others, Sanitec Europe Oy

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside point 1 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal insofar as it annuls article 1 of the contested Decision as regards the events in AFICS and the liability of Allia SAS, Produits Céramique de Touraine SA and Sanitec for them;

               —

               set aside in full point 2 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal;

               —

               if the Court of Justice gives final judgment, to dismiss the action for annulment also insofar as it concerns the events in AFICS and to reinstate the fines imposed on Allia SAS, Produits Céramique de Touraine SA and Sanitec; and, in any event,

               —

               to order the applicants at first instance (now other parts in the proceedings) bear the costs of this appeal, and, to the extent that the Court of Justice gives final judgment on the action for annulment, of such case as well.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   First ground: failure to comply with duty to state reasons and the rules of evidence; the General Court failed to examine several relevant pieces of evidence and applied too high evidentiary requirements for those pieces of evidence that the General Court did examine.
   Second ground: contradictory reasoning; the assessment of the evidence is in direct contradiction with that in three other judgments delivered the same day relating to the same decision and the same facts.


title: Case C-254/07: Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/16

         Action brought on 30 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-254/07)
   (2007/C 170/29)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Kukovec, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (1) coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors, or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period within which Directive 2004/17/EC had to be transposed expired on 31 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1.


title: Case T-579/10: Action brought on 21 December 2010 — macros consult GmbH v OHIM (makro)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/30

         Action brought on 21 December 2010 — macros consult GmbH v OHIM (makro)
   (Case T-579/10)
   2011/C 55/54
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: macros consult GmbH — Unternehmensberatung für Wirtschafts- und Finanztechnologie (Ottobrunn, Germany) (represented by: T. Raible, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should

               —

               Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM given on 18 October 2010 in Case R 339/2009-4 so that the appeal brought by the applicant before the Board of Appeal is well-founded and therefore the application for a declaration of invalidity is granted;

               —

               Order OHIM and MIP Metro Group to pay the costs incurred in the invalidity proceedings, appeal proceedings and the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘makro’ and registered in respect of goods and services in classes 1 to 42.

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG.

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: The applicant.

      Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Application for a declaration of invalidity under Article 53(1)(c) and Article 53(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) brought against the registered goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36 and 41.

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application.

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

      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 53(1)(c) and Article 53(2) and Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the applicant used the designation ‘macros Consult’ as its name and business name/trade name already prior to the date of filing the application for the contested trade mark and therefore has a prior right under the first sentence of Paragraph 5(2) of the Law on trade marks (Markengesetz).

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


title: Case C-443/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 September 2014  — Kreis Warendorf v Ibrahim Alo

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany) lodged on 25 September 2014 — Kreis Warendorf v Ibrahim Alo
   (Case C-443/14)
   (2014/C 439/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Kreis Warendorf

      Respondent: Ibrahim Alo

      Other party: Vertreter des Bundesinteresses beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the condition requiring residence to be taken up in a geographically limited area (municipality, district, region) of a Member State constitute a restriction of freedom of movement within the meaning of Article 33 of Directive 2011/95/EU (1), where the foreign national can otherwise move and reside freely in the territory of that Member State?

               2.

               Is a place of residence condition imposed on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status compatible with Article 33 and/or Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU, where it is based on the objective of achieving a reasonable distribution of social assistance burdens among the relevant institutions within the territory of the State?

               3.

               Is a place of residence condition imposed on beneficiaries of subsidiary protection status compatible with Article 33 and/or Article 29 of Directive 2011/95/EU, where it is based on grounds of migration or integration policy, for instance to prevent points of social tension as a result of the accumulated settlement of foreign nationals in certain municipalities or districts? Are abstract migration or integration policy grounds sufficient in this regard or must such grounds be specifically ascertained?

      (1)  Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and for the content of the protection granted (OJ 2011 L 337, p. 9).


title: Action brought on 22 January 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-16/98)

text:
28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 94/9
     Commission examined whether it was possible to                It cannot share the view of the French authorities that,
     apply the derogations provided for in Article 92(2)           technically, there are two types of contracts relating to
     and (3). That point in the decision must suffer the           underground work (electrification) and installation above
     same consequences as the unlawful assessment carried          ground' (street lighting) respectively; the two operations
     out for the purposes of Article 92(1) denounced under         are closely linked and reference to the NACE
     the preceding submission which, should it be upheld,          nomenclature and the CPC and ISIC nomenclatures is
     would overturn all that has been decided on the               irrelevant.
     presumption that the aid is incompatible.
5. Unlawful order to recover the aid on the ground that            Moreover, the Commission considers, in particular in view
     it is in breach of the principles of protection of            of the notices published in both the Official Journal of the
     legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal            European Communities and the French Bulletin Official
     treatment.                                                    des Annonces des MarcheÂs Publics, that SYDEV must be
                                                                   considered to be the only contracting entity in question
(1) Commission Decision 98/95/EC (OJ L 20, 27.1.1998, p. 30).      rather than the individual associations of communes for
                                                                   the electrification of the VendeÂe. Since the contracting
                                                                   entity, for the purposes of the Directive, may be an entity
                                                                   with no legal personality, the question as to who is a legal
                                                                   party to the public contract is not decisive in order to
                                                                   identify it as the contracting entity. Finally, the work
Action brought on 22 January 1998 by the Commission of             concerned has only one purpose and is intended to fulfil a
  the European Communities against the French Republic             single economic and technical function, namely
                        (Case C-16/98)                             electrification over a number of years of the deÂpartement
                         (98/C 94/17)                              of the VendeÂe. Only the geographical location of the work
                                                                   is varied within the same deÂpartement. That difference is
An action against the French Republic was brought before           not such as to enable various works to be distinguished: it
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                merely means that several lots may be distinguished within
22 January 1998 by the Commission of the European                  the same works. However, pursuant to the second
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                paragraph of Article 14(10), in particular, where a work is
Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil            the subject of several lots, the value of each lot is to be
servant on secondment to the Legal Service, acting as              taken into account when assessing the value of all the
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the           contracts.
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                         The notices of the award of contracts as published
The Commission of the European Communities claims                  confirm the Commission's view that the result of splitting
that the Court should:                                             the contracts has been to reserve the contracts to local
                                                                   undertakings, who were better informed as to the real
Ð declare that, in the course of the procurement                   scale of the programme of works. Those notices show in
     procedure issued by the Syndicat DeÂpartement                 fact that all the contracts were awarded to a restricted
     d'Electrification de la VendeÂe in December 1994 for          group of undertakings of the deÂpartement of the VendeÂe.
     the award of a contract for electrification and street
     lighting work, the French Republic failed to fulfil its       (1) OJ L 199, 9.8.1993, p. 84.
     obligations under Articles 4(2), 14(1), 10 and 13,            (2) Judgment in Case C-311/96 (OJ C 212, 12.7.1997, p. 6).
     together with Articles 21, 24 and 25 of Council
     Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the
     procurement procedures of entities operating in the
     water, energy, transport and telecommunications
     sectors (1),
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the President of the
                                                                   Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague, by order of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   19 December 1997 in the case of Emesa Sugar (Free Zone)
When the procedure for the award of public contracts in            NV and 1. the Netherlands State, 2. the Hoofdproduct-
question was held (end 1994 to early 1996), Directive 93/                 schap voor Akkerbouwproducten and 3. Aruba
38/EEC of 14 June 1993 had still not been transposed into                                  (Case C-17/98)
French law (2). None the less, the contracting entity was
required to apply the provisions of that Directive to that                                  (98/C 94/18)
award procedure by reason of their direct effect as from
1 July 1994.
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
The Commission considers that the entire electrification           European Communities by order of the President of the
and street lighting work in question comes within the              Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague, of 19 December
scope of one contracting entity and constitutes a single           1997, received at the Court Registry on 23 January 1998,
contract which was artificially split in order to avoid the        for a preliminary ruling in the case of Emesa Sugar (Free
obligations of the Directive.                                      Zone) NV and 1. the Netherlands State, 2. the Hoofdpro-


title: Judgment of the Court of 28 October 1999 in Case C-328/96: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Public works contracts — Admissibility — Compatibility with Community law of conditions governing invitations to tender — Failure to publish a contract notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities)

text:
C 34/4                    EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.2.2000
purposes of informing and consulting employees (OJ 1994                      were concluded before 6 February 1996 but which on 7 March
L 254, p. 64), alternatively by failing to ensure the introduction           1996 had still not been performed or could reasonably have
by management and labour of the required provisions by                       been cancelled, has failed to fulfil its obligations under
way of agreement, and thus by failing to take and/or to                      Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
communicate to the Commission the measures required to                       coordination of procedures for the award of public works
guarantee the results to be achieved under that directive, the               contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54) and Council Directive
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations               89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the
under the EC Treaty — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                    laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the
of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber,                application of review procedures to the award of public supply
G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger,                   and public works contracts (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33) as well as
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                  under Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
on 21 October 1999, in which it:                                             Article 28 EC) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
                                                                             Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and          and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann (Rappor-
    administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council               teur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann. and M. Wathelet,
    Directive 94/45/EC of 22 December 1994 on the establishment              Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
    of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale            Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
    undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for              on 28 October 1999, in which it has ruled that:
    the purposes of informing and consulting employees, alternatively
    by failing to ensure the introduction by management and labour           1. In connection with the building at Sankt Pöllten of the new
    of the required provisions by way of agreement, and thus by                  administrative and cultural centre for the Land of Lower Austria,
    failing to take the measures required to guarantee the results to            the Republic of Austria, in awarding the contracts which were
    be achieved under the Directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg               concluded before 6 February 1996 but which on 7 March 1996
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;                   had still not been performed or could reasonably have been
                                                                                cancelled, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                        Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordi-
                                                                                nation of procedures for the award of public works contracts,
                                                                                under Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on
(1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.                                                        the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                                provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the
                                                                                award of public supply and the public works contracts and under
                                                                                Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28
                                                                                EC);
                                                                             2. The Republic of Austria is ordered to pay the costs.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996.
                         of 28 October 1999
in Case C-328/96: Commission of the European Communi-
                   ties v Republic of Austria (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Public                                         (Sixth Chamber)
works contracts — Admissibility — Compatibility with
Community law of conditions governing invitations to tender                                         of 28 October 1999
— Failure to publish a contract notice in the Official Journal
                  of the European Communities)                               in Case C-6/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                             the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart): Arbeitsgemeinschaft
                             (2000/C 34/07)                                  Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten (ARD) v PRO Sieben Media
                                                                                AG(1)
                    (Language of the case: German)                           (Television broadcasting — Limitation on transmission time
                                                                                allocated to advertising)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                 (2000/C 34/08)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-328/96: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: H. van Lier and C. Schmidt) v Republic of Austria                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Agent: W. Okresek) — application for a declaration that in                                     in the European Court Reports)
connection with the building at Sankt Pölten of a new
administrative and cultural centre for the Land of Lower                     In Case C-6/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Austria the Republic of Austria, in awarding contracts which                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberlandesgericht


title: Case C-550/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 November 2014  — Envirotec Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 28 November 2014 — Envirotec Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-550/14)
   (2015/C 056/11)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Envirotec Denmark ApS

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Question referred

   Are bars consisting of a random, rough fusion of various scrapped, gold-bearing metal objects covered by the terms ‘gold material or semi-manufactured products’ within the meaning of Article 198(2) of the VAT Directive (1)?
   It can be taken as established that the bars consist of a random, rough fusion of various scrapped, gold-bearing metal objects and they can contain, in addition to gold, also organic materials, such as teeth, rubber, PVC and metals/materials such as copper, tin, nickel, amalgam, the remains of batteries containing mercury and lead, and various toxic substances, etc. There is thus no question of it being a gold-bearing product which is being processed directly into a finished product. On the other hand, the bar is a processed product (a fusion), which — as a form of intermediate stage — is created with a view to extracting the gold content. The bars have a high gold content, on average between 500 and 600 thousandths, and thus substantially over 325 thousandths gold. After extraction the gold content is to be used to manufacture (gold/gold-bearing) products.
   In answering the question, it can also be taken as established that the bars cannot directly form part of other products, since first the bars must be subjected to processing in which the metals are separated and the non-metals and hazardous substances etc., are melted away/excreted.

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-25/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 2009 — Iride and Iride Energia v Commission (State aid — Energy sector — Compensation for stranded costs — Decision declaring aid compatible with the common market — Obligation for the recipient undertaking first to repay earlier aid declared unlawful — State resources — Advantage — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/35

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 February 2009 — Iride and Iride Energia v Commission
   (Case T-25/07) (1)

   (State aid - Energy sector - Compensation for stranded costs - Decision declaring aid compatible with the common market - Obligation for the recipient undertaking first to repay earlier aid declared unlawful - State resources - Advantage - Obligation to state reasons)
   (2009/C 69/82)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicants: Iride SpA (Turin, Italy); and Iride Energia SpA (Turin) (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola and C. Bazoli, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Righini and G. Conte, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/941/EC of 8 November 2006 on State aid C 11/06 (ex N 127/05) which Italy is planning to implement for AEM Torino (OJ 2006 L 366, p. 62), in the form of grants to reimburse the stranded costs in the energy sector, in so far as (i) it contains a finding of State aid and (ii) it makes compatibility of that aid with the common market conditional upon reimbursement by AEM Torino of earlier unlawful aid granted under the scheme for ‘municipalised’ undertakings.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Iride SpA and Iride Energia SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case T-2/10: Action brought on 5 January 2010 — De Lucia v OHIM — Galbani (De Lucia La natura pratica del gusto)

text:
               27.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/45

         Action brought on 5 January 2010 — De Lucia v OHIM — Galbani (De Lucia La natura pratica del gusto)
   (Case T-2/10)
   2010/C 51/83
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Domenico De Lucia SpA (San Felice a Cancello, Italy) (represented by: S. Cutolo, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Egidio Galbani SpA (Melzo, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 October 2009 in Case R 37/2009-1.

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: De Lucia

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark composed of the word element ‘De Luca/La natura pratica del gusto’ (application for registration No 4 962 346) for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 31.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Egidio Galbani SpA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘LUCIA’ (No 620 716) for goods in Classes 29 and 30; Community figurative mark composed of the word element ‘Galbani-Santa Lucia’ (No 2 302 677) for goods in Class 29; national (Italian registration No 67 470) and international (No 256 299) figurative mark ‘LUCIA’ for goods in Class 29; national (Italian registration No 597 377), international (No 601 651) and Community (No 70 185) figurative mark ‘Santa Lucia’ for goods in Classes 29 and 30; national (Italian registration No 131 028) and international (No 256 299) word mark ‘Santa Lucia’ for goods in Class 29, and Community word mark ‘Santa Lucia’ (No 70 128) for goods in Classes 29 and 30.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part insofar as concerns certain goods in Class 31.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal granted insofar as concerns ‘tobacco’ (Class 31) and authorisation granted for the registration of this product.

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 and no and/or inadequate reasons given in relation to the request that Article 12(a) of the regulation be applied.


title: Case C-436/13: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 2 August 2013 — E. v B.

text:
               12.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 2 August 2013 — E. v B.
   (Case C-436/13)
   2013/C 298/07
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

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

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: E.

      Defendant: B.

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where there has been a prorogation of the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State in relation to matters of parental responsibility pursuant to Article 12(3) of the Council Regulation (1), does that prorogation of jurisdiction only continue until there has been a final judgment in those proceedings or does it continue even after the making of a final judgment?

               2.

               Does Article 15 of the Council Regulation allow the courts of a Member State to transfer a jurisdiction in circumstances where there are no current proceedings concerning the child?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000. OJ L 338, p. 1


title: Case T-229/14: Action brought on 11 April 2014  — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb v OHIM — Yorma’s (Yorma Eberl)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/30

         Action brought on 11 April 2014 — Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb v OHIM — Yorma’s (Yorma Eberl)
   (Case T-229/14)
   2014/C 194/38
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Norma Lebensmittelfilialbetrieb Stiftung & Co. KG (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Yorma’s AG (Deggendorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 February 2014 in Case R 532/2013-4;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Yorma’s AG

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Yorma Eberl’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 21, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 9 40  289

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The trade and firm name in commercial use and national and Community word marks NORMA for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-94/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2015 by Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2014 in Case T-550/08 Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG v European Commission

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/14

         Appeal brought on 24 February 2015 by Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2014 in Case T-550/08 Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG v European Commission

   (Case C-94/15 P)
   (2015/C 127/20)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG (represented by: Dr. U. Itzen and J. Ziebarth LLM, Rechtsanwältinnen)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2014 in Case T-550/08 in so far as it concerns the appellant;

               2.

               in the alternative, reduce appropriately the fine of EUR 12 million imposed on the applicant under Article 2 of the contested decision of 1 October 2008;

               3.

               in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court for a fresh decision;

               4.

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2014, Tudapetrol Mineralölerzeugnisse Nils Hansen KG v European Commission, by which the General Court rejected the application to annul Commission Decision C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 in Case COMP/39181 — Candle waxes, in so far as it concerns the applicant and, in the alternative, for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed upon it.
   The appellant relies on the following grounds of appeal:
   By its first ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court infringed Articles 101 and 296 of the TFEU and its essential rights of defence and procedural rights since the General Court held it liable to pay a fine contrary to the principles for attributing liability to an undertaking for the purposes of EU competition law. The fundamental inconsistency lies in the fact that the General Court treated the appellant, on the one hand, and the separately fined limited partnership, H&R KG, and its subsidiary, on the other hand, as separate undertakings for the purposes of the fine. At the same time, the General Court, as well as the Commission before it, considered these undertakings as a single undertaking, ‘H&R/Tudapetrol’, for the purposes of finding an alleged infringement and the attribution of liability. The same undertakings cannot, however, have committed an infringement as one undertaking yet be considered as two undertakings for the purposes of the imposition of a fine. The General Court therefore incorrectly confirmed a double penalty for the same acts of what was allegedly a single undertaking.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court infringed the obligation to state the reasons for the judgment under appeal (Article 296 TFEU). This is, first, because the judgment under appeal did not contain any sufficiently individualised findings as to the accusations against the appellant. On the basis of the undifferentiated reasons, which were confirmed by the General Court, for the infringement by the entity not described further other than as ‘H&R/Tudapetrol’, it is not possible to know which acts were attributed to the appellant, neither from the Commission Decision, nor the judgment under appeal. The appellant complains that its individual objections to the finding of the facts of the case were not dealt with comprehensively. The General Court only partially considered and ruled upon the objections raised. In so far as the General Court did address the appellant’s objections, the General Court erred in law in its reasoning by contravening the rules of evidence or logic, or by distortion of the evidence before the court.
   By its third ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the General Court materially infringed the appellant’s rights of defence. In particular, the General Court, as the Commission before it, failed to carry out a sufficiently individualised statement of the allegations upheld against the appellant and instead incorrectly reasoned throughout on the basis of the unclear denomination ‘H&R/Tudapetrol’. This had the result that it was not possible for the appellant to know which individual allegations were raised against it, nor the evidence upon which those allegations were grounded. The principle of in dubio pro reo was therefore infringed and the appellant’s defence of the allegations raised was improperly impaired.


title: Action brought on 10 March 1998 by the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-46/98)

text:
16.5.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 151/11
19 December 1997 for an import licence in respect of                Instance on 10 March 1998 by the Council of European
sugar originating in the OCT had to be declared                     Municipalities and Regions, established in Paris,
inadmissible. That Regulation is intended to implement              represented by Daniel M. Tomasevic, of the Brussels Bar,
Article 108b, which was inserted into Decision 91/482/              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
EEC by Decision 97/803/EC.                                          chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel.
By way of a plea of illegality, the applicant submits that
Decision 97/803/EC, or at least the Articles thereof which          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
restrict the importation of sugar originating in the OCT, is        should:
contrary to Community law. The grounds are identical to
those in Case T-43/98.
Also by way of a plea of illegality, the applicant submits          Ð annul the decision of the Commission of the European
that Regulation (EC) No 2553/97 is contrary to                           Communities contained in debit note 97009405F
Community law:                                                           concerning ECOS Project No 91/00/29003, by which
                                                                         the Commission refuses to pay to the CEMR a balance
                                                                         of ECU 204 446 and claims from the CEMR a balance
1. since Decision 97/803/EC is unlawful, the Regulation                  of ECU 363 336,
    based on it is also invalid;
2. there is no valid legal basis for the requirement for an
    import licence laid down in the Regulation;                     Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
3. if (secondary) Community legislation does provide a
    legal basis for the requirement for a licence for the           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    importation of OCT sugar, Articles 132 and 30 of the
    EC Treaty oppose it;
                                                                    The applicant, a federation of 37 national associations of
4. the licences in question are EUR-1 certificates, which
                                                                    local and regional authorities in 28 European countries,
    the OCT authorities have exclusive competence to
                                                                    contests the decision by which the Commission refuses to
    issue; that competence cannot be restricted by the
                                                                    approve certain expenses in relation to a project
    Commission;
                                                                    undertaken within the framework of the European City
                                                                    Cooperation System (ECOS) Programme. It states that it
5. the supplementary requirements laid down by the                  has been involved since the early 1960s in the
    Commission give rise to additional barriers to trade;           management of that programme, launched by the
                                                                    Commission's Directorate-General XIV, the purpose of
                                                                    which is to promote cooperation between local authorities
6. the Regulation is contrary to the WTO and the other              of the European Union and those of the countries of
    agreements adopted in that context.                             Central and Eastern Europe.
Furthermore, the Regulation only entered into force on
1 January 1998 and, in the applicant's opinion, could not
therefore serve as a basis for the decision.                        As regards the facts of the case, the applicant claims that
                                                                    the ECOS Programme gave rise to a first decision to grant
                                                                    Community aid to it, notified on 10 December 1991, and
(1) OJ L 349, 19.12.1997, p. 26.
                                                                    that the Commission even decided subsequently to grant
                                                                    additional aid. On 19 April 1996 the applicant received a
                                                                    fax from the defendant signalling its approval of the final
                                                                    report.     However,       immediately    following      that
                                                                    communication, it became apparent that the defendant
                                                                    was starting to change its attitude regarding the project,
Action brought on 10 March 1998 by the Council of                   and as a result the contested decision was adopted.
European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-46/98)
                                                                    The applicant first alleges infringement of the obligation
                        (98/C 151/22)                               to state reasons, in that the defendant did not reply to any
                                                                    of the arguments set out in various letters, in particular
                                                                    the one which followed the meeting of 24 September
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                    1997. The Commission did not explain why certain
                                                                    supporting documents were not regarded as adequate even
An action against the Commission of the European                    though the Commission itself asked for them to be sent
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   to it.
 ---pagebreak--- C 151/12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     16.5.98
The applicant also accuses the Commission of breaching              Instance on 13 March 1998 by Acciai Speciali Terni SpA,
the terms of the decisions granting aid, and the principles         represented by Luca G. Radicato di Brozolo, of the Milan
of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.       Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
It states that the defendant abandoned its clear position of        chambers of Alex Schmitt, 7 Val Ste Croix.
19 April 1996 by virtue of a decision taken almost two
years after submission of the financial report and that it
must therefore be concluded that there was a change of
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance
attitude, at variance with instructions given earlier, and
                                                                    should:
also a lack of clear indications concerning chargeable
expenditure and the procedure to be followed for
obtaining prior confirmation as to whether expenditure
was chargeable. The applicant draws particular attention            Ð annul the Commission Decision of 21 January 1998
to the uncertainty cast upon its status as a network. In                 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 65 of the
that connection, the applicant states that, in the past, the             ECSC Treaty (Case IV/35.814 Extra lega),
CEMR has managed numerous projects in conjunction
with the Commission, in which importance was always
attached to the contribution made by its network, upon
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul that Decision in so far as it
which the defendant was able to rely to ensure the success
                                                                         orders the applicant (a) to pay a fine (Article 2) and
of the project. Similarly, the Commission did not comply
                                                                         (b) to bring the infringement to an end (Article 4),
with the terms of the aid decisions concerning particular
headings and rates of joint financing.
                                                                    Ð in the further alternative, reduce the fine imposed on
                                                                         AST,
Moreover, in the applicant's opinion, the Commission's
conduct,       consisting     in   sending      contradictory
communications at very short intervals, without giving
any clarification of them, despite various requests to that         Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
effect, is indicative of manifest disfunction within the
Commission which is not compatible with the principle of
sound administration.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant also alleges breach of the principle of
proportionality, in that the Commission states that staff           The decision at issue in this case is the same as the one in
and operational expenses cannot be taken into account               Case T-45/98 Krupp Thyssen Stainless v. Commission. The
since there is no specific management structure for the             pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
ECOS project in respect of the relevant headings. In its            similar to those put forward in the latter case. In support
view, the defendant's position on that point is liable to           of its claims, the applicant, an Italian producer of stainless
increase the costs to be shared amongst the local                   steel, alleges infringement of the ECSC Treaty and of
authorities making up its network.                                  numerous rules and of substantive principles concerning
                                                                    its application, and also acts ultra vires and infringements
                                                                    of essential procedural requirements. It is contended that
                                                                    the contested Decision does not clearly identify the
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of           infringement imputed to the undertakings. In that
equal treatment as far as it is concerned.                          connection, the defendant is accused of giving an incorrect
                                                                    and confused account and assessment of the facts and
                                                                    contradictory reasoning which is not set out with the
                                                                    required degree of detail.
                                                                    As regards the fine imposed, the applicant contends that
Action brought on 13 March 1998 by Acciai Speciali                  the conditions for its imposition were not fulfilled.
Terni SpA against the Commission of the European                    Moreover, its amount was determined in breach of
                          Communities                               the relevant principles, including the principle of
                                                                    proportionality.
                        (Case T-47/98)
                         (98/C 151/23)
                                                                    In its third plea in law, the applicant alleges that the
                                                                    requirement that the infringement be brought to an end,
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     contained in Article 4 of the Decision, is lacking in its
                                                                    subject-matter, is imprecise and has no legal basis.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case T-236/12: Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Airbus v OHIM (NEO)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/24

         Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Airbus v OHIM (NEO)
   (Case T-236/12)
   2012/C 243/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Airbus SAS (France) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 February 2012 in case R 1387/2011-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NEO’ for goods and services in classes 7, 12, and 39 — Community trade mark application No 9624974

      Decision of the Examiner: Partially refused to register the community trade mark application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 59 of Council Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c) and 7(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and

               —

               Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Michael A. Köhler against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-79/97)

text:
No C 166/20              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                   31 . 5 . 97
restoration of competition with, for example, animals                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
reared in the Netherlands, which, at a weight of 138
kilograms, will be capable of being sold on the French                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
market at a higher price, having regard not only to the                      Case T- 16/97 ( M.
number of additional kilograms but also to the higher
price per kilogram paid for animals with superior physical                   (') OJ No C 74 , 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27.
characteristics, for which a premium of ECU 60 is to be
paid .
O OJ No C 94, 22 . 3 . 1997, pp . 20, 21 and 22 respectively.
( 2 ) Not yet published in the Official Journal .
( 3 ) Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 200/97 of 31 January 1997              Action brought on 28 March 1997 by F. Javier Maetzu
      amending Regulation (EEC ) No 3886/92 laying down detailed             Nieva against the . Commission of the European
      rules for the application of premium schemes in the beef and                                         Communities
      veal sector ( OJ No L 31 , 1 . 2 . 1997, p. 62 ).                                                 ( Case T-78/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 166/41 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European
Action brought on 27 March 1997 by Jose Baiges Planas                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
and 16 others against the Commission of the European                         Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997
                               Communities                                   by F. Javier Maetzu Nieva, residing in Brussels,
                                                                             represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                            ( Case T-77/97)                                  address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
                              ( 97/C 166/40                                  Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
                                                                             The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             — annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996
                                                                                rejecting the applicant's request that it give
An action against the Commission of the European                                  consideration to the possible application of Article 31
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1997
by Jose Baiges Planas, residing in Brussels, Viviane Baretti-                — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision
Piazzi, residing at Rhode St Genese ( Belgium ), David                            adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996
Broderick, residing in Brussels, Alessandro Buttice,                              expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,
residing in Brussels, Peter Grasmann, residing in Brussels,
Timothy Hayes, residinig at Wezembeek-Oppem                                  — order the defendant to pay all the costs .
 ( Belgium ), Louis Hersom, residing in Brussels, Owen
Jones, residing in Brussels, Jean-Louis Levy-Gorgeot,                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
residing at Bereldange ( Luxembourg), Saturno Mallia,
residing at Overijse ( Belgium ), Fernardo Mazza, residing
                                                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 at Steinsel ( Luxembourg), Yasmine Pire, residing in
                                                                             Case T- 16/97 (').
 Brussels, William Richer, residing at Hoeilaart ( Belgium ),
Josefa Rodriguez Portero, residing in Brussels, Robert
                                                                             H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p . 27 .
 Smyth, residing at Sterrebeek ( Belgium), Alain Van
 Hamme, residing at Grimbergen ( Belgium ), and Fionnuala
Walker, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert
 Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de
 Nassau .
                                                                             Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Michael A. Köhler
                                                                                against the Commission of the European Communities
 The applicants claim that the Court should:                                                             ( Case T- 79/97 )
                                                                                ( 971C 166/42 )
 — annul the Commission's decision rejecting their request                                     (Language of the case: French)
       to be regraded,
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities was brought before the Court of First
 — annul the Commission's                   decision    rejecting their       Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997
        administrative complaint,                                             by Michael A. Köhler, residing at Wezembeek-Oppem
                                                                              ( Belgium), represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels
                                                                              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
 — order the Commission to pay the costs.                                     offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange .
 ---pagebreak--- 31 . 5 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 166/21
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           The corresponding request for payment in full was made
                                                                       by letter of 31 March 1995 from the Assessore Regionale
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 June 1996                      all'Agricoltura, which was never answered by the
     rejecting the applicant's request that it give                    Commission. Consequently, in November 1996, since the
     consideration to the possible application of Article 31           applicant region had not received the payment requested,
     ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,                                   it sent a request for payment to the Commission , which
                                                                       stated in response that, as the request for payment in full
— annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision                   in respect of the project in question should have reached it
     adopted by the Commission on 27 December 1996                     by 31 March 1995 , whereas it had only arrived four days
     expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint,                    later, the Community assistance had to be withdrawn
                                                                       pursuant to Article 10 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 4256/
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.                            88 (').
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    The applicant claims in the first place that Article 10 of
                                                                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 4256/88 has been infringed in so far
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 as that provision does not provide that requests for
Case T- 16/97 ( M.                                                     payment must be received by the Commission by
                                                                       31 March, but only that they must have been 'the subject
H OJ No C 74, 8 . 3 . 1997, p. 27.                                     of a request for final payment by 31 March 1995 '.
                                                                       Consequently, the letter from the Region of Tuscany
                                                                       correctly complies with the provision of the Regulation in
                                                                       question, which lays down the deadline for sending the
                                                                       request and not for its receipt.
Action brought on 1 April 1997 by the Region of Tuscany                The application also claims that there has been a failure to
  against the Commission of the European Communities                   comply with the principle of proportionality. In the
                          (Case T-81/97)                               applicant's view, even it is accepted that the region did not
                           ( 97/C 166/43 )                             correctly comply with the provision — which it denies —,
                                                                       the economic burden is excessive by comparison with the
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                      aim pursued, that is to say, the automatic sanction of
                                                                       forfeiture of the security laid down for a markedly less
An action against the Commission of the European                       serious infringement than failure to fulfil the principal
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      obligation which the security itself is intended to
Instance of the European Communities on 1 April 1997                   guarantee .
by the Region of Tuscany, Florence, represented by Vito
Vacchi and Lucia Bora, of the Florence Bar, with an                    Lastly, the applicant claims that there has been a further
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                   infringement of Community law in the shape of a breach
Paolo Benocci, 50 Rue de Vianden.                                      of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations . It
                                                                       points in this connection to the complete lack of reaction
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           on the part of the Commission between May 1995 and
                                                                       November 1996 . That lack of reaction created a legitimate
— annul memorandum VI/040551 of the European                           expectation in the region that it would receive the funding
     Commission — Directorate General for Agriculture —                already earmarked for the works in question, given that it
     of 21 November 1994,                                              had been established that the works had been properly
                                                                       completed .
— annul the act — never notified to the applicant region
     — by which the European Commission withdrew the                   (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
     Community assistance earmarked under the Integrated                   laying down provisions for implementing Regulation ( EEC )
     Mediterranean Programme (IMP) for project No                          No 2052/88 as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section ( OJ No
     88.20 .IT.006.0 (works for the supply of potable water                L 374 , 1988 , p. 25 ), as amended by Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                           No 2085/93 of 20 July 1993 ( OJ No L 193 , 1993 , p. 44 ).
     in Tuscany ),
— annul the European Commission 's memorandum of
     31 January 1997, received by the applicant on
     7 February 1997, by which the Commission informed
     it that the assistance had been withdrawn .
                                                                       Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Patrick Rousseaux
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( Case T-82/97)
In this case the Region of Tuscany challenges the                                                 ( 97/C 166/44 )
defendant's act withdrawing the financial assistance
earmarked         under      the   Integrated    Mediterranean                        (Language of the case: French)
Programme ( IMP ) for a project for the supply of potable
water in Tuscany amounting in total to approximately                   An action against the Commission of the European
ECU 900 000 .                                                          Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Case C-559/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 7 November 2011 — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others

text:
               4.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 7 November 2011 — Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others
   (Case C-559/11)
   2012/C 32/23
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pelckmans Turnhout NV

      Defendants: Walter Van Gastel Balen NV, Walter Van Gastel NV, Walter Van Gastel Schoten NV, Walter Van Gastel Lifestyle NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is it to be regarded as an act, omission, course of conduct or representation, commercial communication including advertising and marketing, by a trader, directly connected with the promotion, sale or supply of a product to consumers, and thus as a commercial practice within the meaning of Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market [and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’)], for a shop to be kept open by a trader seven days a week and for that fact to be advertised?

               2.

               Does Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market, or another provision of European Union law, such as, inter alia, Articles 34 TFEU or 35 TFEU or Articles 49 TFEU or 56 TFEU, preclude a provision of national law, such as Articles 8 to 14 of the [Belgian] Law of 10 November 2006 [on opening hours in commerce, crafts and services (‘the Law of 10 November 2006’)] which (save for certain exceptions set out in that law) require a trader to choose a weekly closing day for the shop, given that the trader is thereby prohibited from opening his shop seven days a week, irrespective of the impact that this has or may have on the average consumer and irrespective of whether that act may, in the particular circumstances, be regarded as being contrary to professional diligence or honest commercial practices, and irrespective also of the fact that other legislation besides the Law of 10 November 2006 safeguards employees’ rest periods for the purposes of employment law?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.


title: Case T-536/15: Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               6.6.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/22

         Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID)
   (Case T-536/15) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 200/32)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken and J. Bärenfänger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: ÏD Group (Roubaix, France)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2015 (Case R 2472/2014-4), concerning opposition proceedings between ÏD Group and CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.


title: Case C-254/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft., formerly Glencore Grain Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 183 — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Deduction of input tax — Refund of overpaid VAT — Investigation procedure — Fine imposed on the taxable person in the course of such a procedure — Extension of the period within which the refund must be made — Exclusion of payment of default interest)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 6 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft., formerly Glencore Grain Hungary Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság
   (Case C-254/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 183 - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Deduction of input tax - Refund of overpaid VAT - Investigation procedure - Fine imposed on the taxable person in the course of such a procedure - Extension of the period within which the refund must be made - Exclusion of payment of default interest))
   (2017/C 283/11)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Glencore Agriculture Hungary Kft., formerly Glencore Grain Hungary Kft.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

      Operative part of the judgment

   EU law must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, where a tax investigation procedure is initiated by a tax authority and where a taxable person is fined for failure to cooperate, the date of the refund of overpaid value added tax may be delayed until the formal report on that investigation is delivered to the taxable person and the payment of default interest may be refused, even where the duration of the tax investigation procedure is excessive and cannot be attributed entirely to the conduct of the taxable person.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.