title: Judgment of the Court of 24 September 2002 in Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P: Falck SpA, Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA, v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — ECSC scheme — Rights of the recipient of aid — Scope: no need for trade and competition to be affected — Applicability of different State aid codes over time — Rate of interest to be applied for the repayment of incompatible aid)

text:
9.11.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 274/5
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Concordia Bus Finland Oy Ab, formerly Stagecoach Finland
Oy Ab, and Helsingin kaupunki, HKL-Bussiliikenne, on the
interpretation of Articles 2(1)(a), (2)(c) and (4) and 34(1) of                                       of 24 September 2002
Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,
energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993
L 199, p. 84), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions                in Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P: Falck SpA,
of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland              Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA, v Commission of the European
and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the                                                     Communities ( 1)
Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), and Article 36(1) of
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                   (State aid — ECSC scheme — Rights of the recipient of aid
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                    — Scope: no need for trade and competition to be affected
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court, composed of:                      — Applicability of different State aid codes over time —
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. Jann and F. Macken                     Rate of interest to be applied for the repayment of incompat-
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                                                    ible aid)
Pergola, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rappor-
teur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September                                                    (2002/C 274/07)
2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
1.    Article 36(1)(a) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
      1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award
      of public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      where, in the context of a public contract for the provision of                              in the European Court Reports)
      urban bus transport services, the contracting authority decides
      to award a contract to the tenderer who submits the economically
      most advantageous tender, it may take into consideration
      ecological criteria such as the level of nitrogen oxide emissions
      or the noise level of the buses, provided that they are linked to
                                                                              In Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P: Falck SpA,
      the subject-matter of the contract, do not confer an unrestricted
                                                                              established in Milan (Italy), (lawyers: G. Macrì, M. Condinanzi
      freedom of choice on the authority, are expressly mentioned in
                                                                              and F. Colussi) Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA, established in
      the contract documents or the tender notice, and comply with
                                                                              Bolzano (Italy) (lawyer: B. Nascimbene) — appeal against the
      all the fundamental principles of Community law, in particular
                                                                              judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
      the principle of non-discrimination.
                                                                              Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of
                                                                              16 December 1999 in Case T-158/96 Acciaierie di Bolzano v
                                                                              Commission [1999] ECR II-3927, the other parties to the
2.    The principle of equal treatment does not preclude the taking           proceedings being Commission of the European Communities
      into consideration of criteria connected with protection of the         (Agents: V. di Bucci and K.-D. Borchardt) and Italian Republic
      environment, such as those at issue in the main proceedings,            (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by D. Del Gaizo), with an address
      solely because the contracting entity’s own transport undertaking       for service in Luxembourg, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-
      is one of the few undertakings able to offer a bus fleet satisfying     guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and
      those criteria.                                                         S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La
                                                                              Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, V. Skouris
                                                                              and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
3.    The answer to the second and third questions would not be               L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
      different if the procedure for the award of the public contract at      on 24 September 2002 in which it:
      issue in the main proceedings fell within the scope of Council
      Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the
      procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,              1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      energy, transport and telecommunications sectors.                             16 December 1999 in Case T-158/96 Acciaierie di Bolzano
                                                                                v Commission in so far as the Commission’s tardiness in
                                                                                requiring repayment entailed an infringement of the principle
                                                                                of legal certainty;
( 1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                              2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeals;
                                                                              3.    Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Acciaierie di
                                                                                Bolzano SpA before the Court of First Instance;
 ---pagebreak--- C 274/6                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.11.2002
4.    Orders Falck SpA and Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA to share the                mission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
      costs in Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P;                                    down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 2913/92, but precludes the taxable value from varying
5.    Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs in Cases                 according to the marketing stage where this may result, at least
      C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P.                                                   in certain cases, in the amount of the tax on an imported used
                                                                                car exceeding the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the
                                                                                value of a similar used car already registered in the national
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                                territory.
                                                                            2.   The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty precludes a
                                                                                Member State from applying to used cars imported from
                                                                                another Member State a system of taxation under which the
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          tax on those vehicles
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                —      is equal, during the first six months from the registration
                                                                                or bringing into use of the vehicle, to the tax charged on
                      of 19 September 2002
                                                                                a similar new vehicle, and
in Case C-101/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the korkein hallinto-oikeus): Tulliasiamies, v Antti                        —      is equal, from the 7th to the 150th month of use of the
                                Siilin ( 1)                                             vehicle, to the tax on a similar new vehicle, with a linear
                                                                                reduction by a percentage of 0,5 % per full calendar
(Taxation of imported used cars — First paragraph of Article                            month,
95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph
           of Article 90 EC) — Sixth VAT Directive)
                                                                                since such a system of taxation does not take the actual
                           (2002/C 274/08)                                       depreciation of the vehicle into account and does not provide a
                                                                                guarantee that the amount of tax it determines will in no case
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)                              exceed the residual tax incorporated in the value of a similar
                                                                                used car already registered in the national territory.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            3.   Where a Member State applies to used cars imported from
                                                                                other Member States a system of taxation under which the
                                                                                actual depreciation of the vehicles is defined in a general and
In Case C-101/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                       abstract way on the basis of criteria laid down by national law,
EC by the korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary                    the first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty requires that
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court brought                      system of taxation to be arranged in such a way, making
by Tulliasiamies, and Antti Siilin, on the interpretation of the                 allowance for the reasonable approximations inherent in any
first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after                       system of that type, as to exclude any discriminatory effect. That
amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC) and of the                      requirement presupposes, first, that the criteria on which the
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                         flat-rate method of calculating the depreciation of vehicles is
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                       based are made public and, second, that the owner of a used
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                       vehicle imported from another Member State is able to challenge
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), in the version of                     the application of a flat-rate method of calculation to that
Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992                                 vehicle, which may mean that its particular characteristics have
amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing simplifi-                          to be examined in order to ensure that the tax applied to it does
cation measures with regard to value added tax (OJ 1992                          not exceed the residual tax incorporated in the value of a similar
L 384, p. 47), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,                  used vehicle already registered in the national territory.
President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, A. La Pergola,
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-             4.   A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings, described
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September                  in national law as ‘value added tax’ on car tax, does not
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                     constitute ‘value added tax’ within the meaning of the Sixth
                                                                                Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
1.    The first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after             harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC) allows a                  turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      Member State to apply to used vehicles imported from another               basis of assessment, in the version of Council Directive 92/
      Member State a system of taxation under which the taxable                  111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 77/388/
      value is determined by reference to the customs value as defined           EEC and introducing simplification measures with regard to
      by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October                       value added tax, and is compatible with Article 33 of that
      1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Com-                      directive.


title: Action brought on 12 February 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-34/98)

text:
28.3.98                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 94/15
Ð point 2 of the statement infringes Article 73b of the                      fulfil its obligations under Articles 48 and 52 of the
     EC Treaty and Council Directive 88/361/EEC, in that                     EC Treaty and Article 13 of the said Regulation,
     it requires a maturity of at least two years for
     securities issues by foreign credit institutions on the            Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     German market, and is thus a hindrance to such issues
     compared with issues by German credit institutions.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Contrary to the view of the German Government, in
                                                                        The social debt repayment contribution (CRDS) was
accordance with the scheme of Article 73b et seq. and the
                                                                        introduced by Regulation No 96-50 of 24 January 1996
wording of the first indent of Article 109e(2)(a),
                                                                        and the proceeds of the contribution are allocated to the
restrictions of the free movement of capital may not be
                                                                        Caisse d'Amortissement de la Dette Sociale (Social Debt
justified on the ground of requirements of Member States'
                                                                        Redemption Fund) established by that Regulation. All
monetary policy. However, the restrictions contained in
                                                                        natural persons regarded as resident in France under
the statement are in any event disproportionate, since Ð
                                                                        French tax law are liable to pay the CRDS in particular
as shown by the example of numerous other Member
                                                                        on their employment income or substitute income.
States Ð money supply can be controlled without
                                                                        Taxable persons resident in France who draw their
adopting measures which restrict the free movement of
                                                                        employment income or substitute income from another
capital.
                                                                        Member State are thus subject to the CRDS.
Contrary to the view of the German Government, a rule
                                                                        Since the CRDS is intended to contribute to the financing
which imposes on domestic banks only a minimum reserve
                                                                        of all sectors of the general social security scheme in
obligation for bonds issued exclusively in Germany affects
                                                                        France, it is a social security contribution within the scope
internal factual situations only; there is thus no
                                                                        of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
discrimination relevant from the point of view of
Community law.
                                                                        The levying of the CRDS on the employment income and
(1) Statement of the Deutsche Bundesbank on German mark                 substitute income of persons who reside in France but
    issues of 3 July 1992.                                              work in another Member State, such as frontier-zone
(2) Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the                workers, calls into question the single legislation rule,
    implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ L 178,               inasmuch as the CRDS intended for the financing of social
    8.7.1988, p. 5).                                                    security schemes is levied on income which has already
(3) Second Council Directive of 15 December 1989 on the                 been subjected to all the social contributions of the State
    coordination of laws, regulations and administrative                of employment, which is the only State competent in
    provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the business
                                                                        social security matters in accordance with Article 13 of
    of credit institutions and amending Directive 77/780/EEC (OJ
    L 386, 30.12.1989, p. 1).                                           Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
                                                                        Levying the CRDS on such income on which social
                                                                        contributions have already been levied in the State of
                                                                        employment is incompatible with the said Regulation and
                                                                        constitutes a barrier to the exercise of the fundamental
Action brought on 12 February 1998 by the Commission                    freedoms guaranteed under Articles 48 and 52 of the EC
of the European Communities against the French Republic                 Treaty.
                           (Case C-34/98)
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
                            (98/C 94/31)                                    application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
                                                                            self-employed persons and to members of their families
                                                                            moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
An action against the French Republic was brought before                    1971, p. 416).
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
12 February 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Peter Hillenkamp, Legal
Adviser, and HeÂleÁne Michard, of its Legal Service, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                           Removal from the register of Case C-72/97 (1)
Kirchberg.
                                                                                (98/C 94/32)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        By order of 18 November 1997, the President of the
Ð declare that, by applying the social debt repayment                   Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
     contribution (CRDS) to the employment income and                   removal from the register of Case C-72/97: Commission of
     substitute income of employed and self-employed                    the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain.
     persons resident in France but working in another
     Member State, who by virtue of Regulation (EEC)                    (1) OJ C 108, 5.4.1997.
     No 1408/71 (1) are not subject to French social
     security legislation, the French Republic has failed to


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Second Division, Tax Cases) of 14 February 1996 in the case of ICT - Indústria e Comércio Têxtil, SA v. Fazenda Pública (Case C-93/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133/ 19
Action brought on 22 March 1996 by the Commission of                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                       Supremo Tribunal Administrative ( Second Division, Tax
                                 Spain                                Cases ) of 14 February 1996 in the case of ICT — Industria e
                           Case C-92/96 )                                       Comércio Têxtil, SA v. Fazenda Publica
                           ( 96/C 133/41 )                                                    ( Case C-93/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/42 )
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
22 March 1996 by the Commission of the European                       European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                       Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court), Second
Principal Legal Adviser, and Fernando Castillo de la Torre,           Division, Tax Cases, of 15 February 1996 , which was
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in                  received at the Court Registry on 25 March 1996 , for a
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                  preliminary ruling in the case of ICT — Industria e
                                                                      Comércio Têxtil , SA v. Fazenda Publica ( Revenue
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      Authority ) on the following questions :
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          1 . Is the increase ( of 1 % for each month that elapses
                                                                          without payment being made, following the 30th day
                                                                          after the arrival of the goods in the customs territory of
— declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to              the Community ) provided for in Article 1 ( 3 ) of Council
     ensure that the quality of inshore bathing waters                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 of 23 March 1992
     conforms to the limit values set in Article 3 of Council             imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
     Directive 76/ 160/EEC ('), the Kingdom of Spain has                  cotton yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey (')
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Council          applicable to the free-at-Community-frontier price
     Directive 76/ 160/EEC of 8 December 1975 and under                   whenever it is agreed that the price is payable on a date
     Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty; and                             falling after that 30th day ?
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                       2 . If the answer to the foregoing question cannot be
                                                                          unconditionally affirmative, as a result of the need for a
                                                                          distinction to be drawn, is the said increase applicable in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           circumstances like those of this case ( see the facts
                                                                          proved ) where the price of the imported goods, agreed as
                                                                          payable in 90 days, was about 2,3 % ( in one case ) and
There is no provision in the Act of Accession of Spain                    2,5 % ( in another case ) greater than the price payable
which allows a postponement of the application of                         CAD ( cash against documents )?
Directive 76/ 160/EEC, so that, in accordance with
Article 395 of that Act of Accession and with Article 4 ( 1 ) of      3 . If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative ,
Directive 76/160/EEC, the quality of bathing water is to                  must that increase be applied to the price corresponding
conform to the limit values set in the Directive as from
                                                                          to payment CAD or to the price agreed as payable in
 1 January 1986 , since Community law is mandatory from                   90 days ?
the moment of accession . The applicant points out in this
respect that the Commission has in any event given a
considerable period in which to comply with the obligations           (>) OJ No L 82 , 1992 , p . 1 .
under the Directive .
In any event, the Spanish State has not relied upon the
derogations provided for in Articles 4 ( 3 ), 5 ( 2 ) and 8 of
Directive 76/ 160/EEC . Thus, non-compliance with the
values set in accordance with Article 3 of Directive
 76/160/EEC is tantamount to a failure to fulfil obligations                Removal from the register of Case C-110/92 ( 1 )
under Article 4 of the Directive . In any event, the applicant                                   ( 96/C 133/43 )
recalls that the problem of non-compliance with the
parameters given in Directive 76/160/EEC may also be
resolved by declaring bathing areas unfit for bathing where           By order of 23 January 1996 the President of the Court of
they do not conform to the parameters given in the                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Directive .                                                           from the register of Case C-l 10/92 : Federal Republic of
                                                                      Germany v . Commission of the European Communities .
 (') OJ No L 31 , 5 . 2 . 1976 , p . 1 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 124 , 16 . 5 . 1992 .


title: Case C-514/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 26 November 2008 — Atenor Group SA v Belgian State — SPF Finances

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Namur (Belgium) lodged on 26 November 2008 — Atenor Group SA v Belgian State — SPF Finances
   (Case C-514/08)
   (2009/C 32/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de première instance de Namur
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Atenor Group SA

      Defendant: Belgian State — SPF Finances
   Question referred
   Does the first indent of Article 4 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States (1) preclude national legislation making the deduction of dividends received as definitively taxed income subject to the existence of a taxable profit of the parent company?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) of 16 November 1998 in Joined Cases T-163/97 and T-179/97: Netherlands Antilles v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Disjoinder - Stay of proceedings - Disclaimer of jurisdiction)

text:
13.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 71/25
marketing milk by virtue of Council Regulation (EEC)                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for                                     of 3 December 1998
the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of
Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk                      in Case T-230/94 (92): Frederick Farrugia v Commission
products sector (OJ L 90, 1.4.1984, p. 13), as                                     of the European Communities (1)
supplemented       by Commission         Regulation (EEC)                                  (Taxation of costs)
No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (OJ L 132, 18.5.1984, p. 11)
Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended                                      (1999/C 71/48)
Composition), composed of R. M. Moura Ramos,
President of the Chamber, R. García-Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P.                        (Language of the case: English)
Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made
an order on 15 December 1998, the operative part of
which is as follows:                                                 In Case T-230/94 (92): Frederick Farrugia, resident in
                                                                     Athens, represented by Linos Sissilianos, of the Athens
                                                                     Bar, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
1. There is no need to adjudicate on the application.                Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð application for taxation of
                                                                     costs following the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                     of 21 March 1996 in Case T-230/94 Farrugia v
2. The defendants are to pay the costs.                              Commission [1996] ECR II-195 Ð the Court of First
                                                                     Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A. Potocki,
(1) OJ C 165, 2.7.1992.                                              President, C. W. Bellamy and A. W. H. Meij, Judges; H.
                                                                     Jung, Registrar, made an order on 3 December 1998, the
                                                                     operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                     The total amount of costs to be paid by the Commission
                                                                     to the applicant is fixed at GRD 1 200 000.
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     (1) OJ C 101, 22.4.1995.
                     of 4 December 1998
in Case T-448/93 (92): British Cement Association and
   Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                      (Taxation of costs)
                        (1999/C 71/47)
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                of 16 November 1998
                                                                     in Joined Cases T-163/97 and T-179/97: Netherlands
In Case T-448/93 (92): British Cement Association,
                                                                     Antilles v Council of the European Union and
established at Wexham Springs (United Kingdom), Blue
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities (1)
Circle Industries Plc, established in London, Castle
Cement Ltd, established at Peterborough (United                      (Disjoinder Ð Stay of proceedings Ð Disclaimer of
Kingdom), and Rugby Group Plc, established at Rugby                                            jurisdiction)
(United Kingdom), represented by David Lyon, of the Bar
                                                                                (1999/C 71/49)
of England and Wales, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Eric White) Ð application for
taxation of costs pursuant to the judgment of the Court of                           (Language of the case: Dutch)
First Instance of 6 July 1995 in Joined Cases T-447/93,
T-448/93 and T-449/93 AITEC and Others v Commission
                                                                     In Joined Cases T-163/97: Netherlands Antilles,
[1995] ECR II-1971 Ð the Court of First Instance (First
                                                                     represented by Marco Marinus Slotboom and Pierre
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of B.
                                                                     Vincent FrancËois Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an
Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A. Meij
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
                                                                     Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the
on 4 December 1998, the operative part of which is as
                                                                     European Union (Agents: Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber
follows:
                                                                     and Guus Houttuin) and Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn), supported by
The total amount of the costs recoverable by the                     Kingdom of Spain (Agent: Luis PeÂrez de Ayala Becerril)
applicants in Case T-448/93 is fixed in the sum of GBP               and Italian Republic (Agents: Umberto Leanza and
90 000.                                                              Francesca Quadri); and T-179/97: Netherlands Antilles,
                                                                     represented by Marco Marinus Slotboom and Pierre
                                                                     Vincent FrancËois Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an
(1) OJ C 121, 13.5.1992.
                                                                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against Council of the
                                                                     European Union (Agents: Ramon Torrent, Jürgen Huber
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/26                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  13.3.1999
and Guus Houttuin), supported by Kingdom of Spain                    Lucera (Italy), represented by Luigi Filippo Paolucci and
(Agent: Rosario Silva de Lapuerta) and Commission of the             Gian Piero Galletti, of the Bologna Bar, with an address
European Communities (Agent: Thomas van Rijn) Ð                      for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne
application, in Case T-163/97, first, for annulment of               Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-Adelaïde, v Council of the
Commission Regulation (EC) No 764/97 of 23 April 1997                European Union (Agents: John Carbery and Antonio
introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of              Tanca) Ð application for annulment of Article 2 of
rice originating in the overseas countries and territories           Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 of 15 December
(OJ L 112, 29.4.1997, p. 3) and, secondly, for an order              1997 authorising Portugal to grant aid to sugar beet
requiring the Community to pay compensation for the                  producers and abolishing all State aid from the 2001/2002
losses allegedly suffered by the applicant following the             marketing year (OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 3) Ð the Court
adoption of the abovementioned regulation and of                     (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
Council Regulation (EC) No 1036/97 of 2 June 1997                    of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, and R. García-
introducing safeguard measures in respect of imports of              Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H.
rice originating in the overseas countries and territories           Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 December 1998,
(OCTs) (OJ L 151, 10.6.1997, p. 8) and, in Case                      the operative part of which is a follows:
T-179/97, for annulment of the latter regulation Ð the
Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M.
Jaeger, President of the Third Chamber, K. Lenaerts and J.           1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
16 November 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:                                                             2. The applicants are jointly and severally to pay the
                                                                          costs.
1. Cases T-163/97 Netherlands Antilles v Council and                 (1) OJ C 137, 2.5.1998.
     Commission and T-179/97 Netherlands Antilles v
     Council, are disjoined.
2. Proceedings in T-163/97 Netherlands Antilles v
     Council and Commission are stayed pending delivery
     of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case
                                                                          ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     C-301/97 Netherlands v Council.
                                                                                of 8 December 1998
3. Jurisdiction is declined in Case T-179/97 Netherlands             in Case T-39/98: Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI
     Antilles v Council, in order to enable the Court of                 SpA and Others v Council of the European Union (1)
     Justice to rule on the application for annulment.               (Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 Ð Provision abolishing
                                                                     national aid to sugar beet producers with effect from the
4. The costs are reserved.                                           marketing year 2001/2002 Ð Action for annulment Ð
                                                                                Inadmissibility)
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997 and OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.                                             (1999/C 71/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     In Case T-39/98: Sadam Zuccherifici Divisione della SECI
                                                                     SpA, established at Bologna (Italy), Sadam Castiglionese
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                     SpA, established at Bologna, Sadam Abruzzo SpA,
                      of 8 December 1998                             established at Bologna, Zuccherificio del Molise SpA,
                                                                     established at Termoli (Italy) and SocietaÁ Fondiaria
in Case T-38/98: Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori
                                                                     Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR), established at Cesena
   (ANB) and Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                     (Italy), represented by Vincenzo Cerulli Irelli, of the Rome
(Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 Ð Provision abolishing                   Bar, and by Gualtiero Pittalis and Giancarlo Fanzini, of
national aid to sugar beet producers with effect from the            the Bologna Bar, with an address for service in
marketing year 2001/2002 Ð Action for annulment Ð                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen,
                         Inadmissibility)                            22 Rue Marie-Adelaïde, v Council of the European Union
                                                                     (Agents: John Carbery and Antonio Tanca) Ð application
                         (1999/C 71/50)                              for annulment of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                     No 2613/97 of 15 December 1997 authorising Portugal to
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      grant aid to sugar beet producers and abolishing all State
                                                                     aid from the 2001/2002 marketing year (OJ L 353,
                                                                     24.12.1997, p. 3) Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber,
In Case T-38/98: Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori                 Extended Composition), composed of: R. M. Moura
(ANB), established in Rome, Francesco Coccia, residing at            Ramos, President, and R. García-Valdecasas, V. Tiili,
Manfredonia (Italy), and Vincenzo Di Giovine, residing at            P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

text:
No C 314 / 14      EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                            24 . 10 . 96
                                                           III
                                                         (Notices)
                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
                                 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
                                           NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
                                                      (96/C 314/08 )
            The Court of Justice of the European Communities and the General Secretariat of the
            European Parliament are publishing in the Official Journal of the European Communities No
            C 314 A of 24 October 1996 the following open competition :
            English edition
            EUR/LA/ 108 — Conference interpreters
            Finnish edition
            EUR/LA/ 108 — Conference interpreters
            French edition
            EUR/LA/ 108 — Conference interpreters
            German edition
            EUR/LA/ 108 — Conference interpreters
            To obtain this Official Journal please contact the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
            the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg .
            The final date for receipt of applications is 27 November 1996.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 11 June 1996 in the case of Friedrich Santner against Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft (Case C-229/96)

text:
No C 269/8           [ EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        14 . 9 . 96
    and, as a result, has retroactive effect, in fact substituted             subject of judgment in Case 340/87 Commission v.
    a ( five-year ) prescription period for the ordinary                      Italy ( 6 ) — and, in any event, whenever national
    ( 10-year ) limitation period formerly in force, and which,               provisions are retained or introduced which lay down
    in further reducing the prescription period to three                      rules inconsistent with what is provided by directly
    years, considers those periods to be already in course at                 applicable Community rules, such as those of the Treaty
    the time when it entered into force, thereby derogating,                  prohibiting charges having equivalent effect and of the
    without apparent justification, also from the general                     Common Customs Tariff which were the subject of the
    principle set out in Article 252 of the implementing and                  Court's judgment in Case C-209/89 Commission v.
    transitional provisions of the Civil Code, under which,                   Italy ( 7) and its judgment of 5 October 1995 in Case
    in the event that the exercise of a right is made subject to              C-l 25/94 Aprile SRL, in liquidation v. Amministrazione
    a shorter time limit than that laid down by previous                      delle Finanze dello Stato ( 8 ), where the national
    laws, the new time limit applicable also to the exercise of               provisions maintained in force required the payment,
    rights which arose previously begins to run only as from                  contrary to Community law, of charges not due in
    the entry into force of the new provision ?                               circumstances ( such as customs clearance of goods ) such
                                                                              that the trader was not in a position to refuse to pay ? It is
                                                                              therefore asked whether the Member State in breach of
2 . Does the principle that the procedural conditions of
    domestic law for the protection of rights arising under                   the obligation to implement Community provisions
    Community law must not be less favourable than those                      having direct effect is entitled to plead that periods of
    relating to similar actions of a domestic nature                          prescription or limitation expired during the time when
    ( judgments of 15 December 1976 (*) in Case 33/76 Rewe                    the incompatible national provisions were maintained in
    v. Landwirtschaftskammer Saarland ( 2 ) and Case 45/76                    force .
    Comet BV v. Produktschap voor Siergewassen ( , ) ;
    upheld in subsequent other judgments ) preclude the                (])   Properly, judgment of 16 December 1976 .
    introduction of a national provision, such as that                 (2)   ( 1976 ] ECR, p . 1989 .
    provided for in the first paragraph of Article 29 of Law           (3)   | 1976 ] ECR, p . 2043 .
                                                                       (4)   [ 1991 ] ECR I , p . 1575 .
    No 428 of 29 December 1990, which, whilst apparently               (5)   Council Directive 83/643/EEC of 1 December 1983 ( OJ No
    designed to standardize the time limits for the                          L 359 , 22 . 12 . 1983 , p. 8 ).
    repayment of sums paid in relation to customs                      ( 6 ) | 1989 ] ECR , p . 1483 .
    operations , in reality ( as is clear from the heading and         ( 7 ) [ 1991 ] ECR I , p . 1575 .
    the actual wording of the provision ) has the effect of            ( 8 ) | 1995 ] ECR I , p . 2919 .
    extending the prescription periods formerly laid down
    by Article 91 of the Customs Law ( applicable only in the
    event of calculation errors or where a duty other than
    that laid down in the tariff is applied ) to objective undue
    payments made as a result of breaches of Community
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeitsgericht
    law, whilst analogous claims for the recovery of
                                                                       Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 11 June 1996
    objective undue payments under the ordinary domestic
                                                                       in the case of Friedrich Santner against Hoechst
    law ( Article 2033 of the Civil Code ) are subject to the
                                                                                Aktiengesellschaft
     10-year limitation period ?
                                                                                Case C-229/96 )
3 . Is the principle laid down by the Court of Justice in Case                                         96/C 269/20 )
     C-208 /90 Emmott v. Minister for Social Welfare and
     Attorney General ( 4 ) — to the effect that, until such time      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     as an EEC directive has been properly transposed, a               European Communities by order from the Arbeitsgericht
     defaulting Member State may not rely on an individual's           ( Labour Court ) Frankfurt am Main of 11 June 1996 ,
     delay in initiating proceedings against it in order to            received at the Court Registry on 1 July 1996 , for a
     protect rights conferred upon him by the provisions of            preliminary ruling in the case of Friedrich Santner against
     the directive and that a period laid down by national law         Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft on the following questions :
     within which proceedings must be initiated cannot begin
     to run before that time — as an application of the                 1 . Where, following termination of the legal transfer to an
     principle of legal certainty, binding upon the national                   outside firm of the cleaning operations of individual
     courts in the same way as written provisions of                           parts of a business, those operations are again carried
     Community law ?                                                           out by the undertaking itself, can they be treated as part
                                                                               of a business within the meaning of Directive
4 . If the preceding question is answered in the affirmative,                  77/ 187/EEC (')?
     does the aforementioned principle laid down in Case
     C-208/90 Emmott v. Minister for Social Welfare and                 2 . Is the position the same where, following their retransfer
     Attorney General, by virtue of its constituting a specific                to the undertaking, those cleaning operations of
     application of one of the fundamental principles of                       individual parts of the business are re-merged into the
     Community law, have general , direct effect, that is to                   cleaning operations of the business as a whole ?
     say, is it directly applicable and may it be relied upon
     before the national courts by individuals whenever a               (M OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .
     directive is not properly transposed — as in the case
     relating to Directive 83/643/EEC ( 5 ) which formed the


title: Case F-47/14: Action brought on 20 May 2014  — ZZ and ZZ v Commission

text:
               7.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/47

         Action brought on 20 May 2014 — ZZ and ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-47/14)
   2014/C 212/62
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions concerning the transfer of the applicants’ pension rights to the European Union pension scheme applying the new GIP on Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations and an order that the Commission compensate the applicants for the loss caused to them as a result of the delayed handling of their requests to transfer their pension rights, arising due to the application of the GIP on Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 rather than that of 28 April 2004.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare Article 9 of the General Implementing Provisions of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and inapplicable;

               —

               Annul the decisions of 15 and 24 October 2013 calculating the bonus to the pension rights acquired by the applicants before their entry into service, in the transfer thereof into the EU institutions pension scheme by application of the general implementing provisions on Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011;

               —

               Order the Commission to compensate the applicants for the loss caused to them as a result of the delayed handling of their requests to transfer their pension rights, arising due to the application of the GIP on Article 11 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of 3 March 2011 rather than that of 28 April 2004;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Removal from the register of C-145/95

text:
1 . 11 . 97             1 EN 1               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 331 /17
Action brought on 30 September 1997 by the Commission                            Removal from the register of C-145/95 ( J )
of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                                              ( 97/C 331/34 )
                              Luxembourg
                             Case C-339/97 )                            By order of 10 July 1997, the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                             ( 97/C 331/33 )
                                                                        from the register of Case C-145/95 ( Reference for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                     Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto ( Rome
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     District Magistrates ' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto
Communities on 30 September 1997 by the Commission                      Division)): Città Convenienza Bergamo Sri v. Sindaco del
of the European Communities, represented by Götz zur                    Commune di Naviglio.
Hausen, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez                 (>) OJ C 174, 8 . 7. 1995 .
de la Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should :
                                                                                Removal from the register of C- 146/95 ( 1 )
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws,        regulations                                  ( 97/C 331 /35 )
       and administrative provisions necessary         to comply
       with Commission Directive 94/1 5/EC of 15       April 1994       By order of 10 July 1997, the President of the Court of
       adapting to technical progress for the           first time      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
       Council    Directive      90/220/EEC  on   the    deliberate     from the register of Case C-146/95 ( Reference for a
       release into the environment of genetically modified             preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
       organisms (*) and Commission Directive 94/5 1/EC of              Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto (Rome
       7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress                   District Magistrates' Court, Castelnuovo di Porto
       Council Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of             Division)): Città Convenienza Bergamo Sri v. Sindaco del
                                                                        Commune di Torino .
       genetically modified micro-organisms (2 ), the Grand
       Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under those Directives;                              H OJ C 174 , 8 . 7. 1995 .
2 . order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
       costs .
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-3 17/95 H
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /36 )
Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set                 By order of 8 August 1997, the President of the Court of
out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ); the period prescribed for                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
transposition expired on 30 June 1994 (Directive 94/15/                 from the register of Case C-3 17/95 ( Reference for a
EC ) and 30 April 1995 ( Directive 94/51 /EC ).                         preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias
                                                                        ( Council of State, Greece )): Canadane Cheese Trading
(') OJ L 103 , 22 . 4 . 1994, p . 20 .                                  AMBA, Adelfi G. Kouri AEVE v. Ministers of ( 1 )
( 2 ) OJ L297, 18 . 11 . 1994 , p. 29 .                                 Commerce, ( 2 ) Finance, ( 3 ) Health, Welfare and Social
( 3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal.                               Security, and (4 ) Agriculture.
                                                                        (') OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court by order of that court of 22 October 1997 in the case of Dr Gerhard Köbler v. Federal Minister for Science, Research and Technology (Case C-382/97)

text:
10. 1. 98              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 7/9
measures to incorporate the Directive at issue fully into                Does the application of paragraph 17 (1) (2b) or (5)
Greek law. It thus seeks a declaration that the Hellenic                 of the Lebensmittel- und Bedarfsgegenständegesetz in
Republic has committed that infringement.                                conjunction with Numbers 2.19/2.3411 et seq. of the
                                                                         Leitsätze für Fleisch und Fleischerzeugnisse of the German
(1) OJ L 340, 31. 12. 1993, p. 35.                                       Lebensmittelbuch by the Landkreis Grafschaft Bentheim
(2) OJ L 303, 31. 10. 1990, p. 6.                                        or the Staatsanwaltschaft Osnabrück in the present case
                                                                         contravene Article 30 et seq. of the EEC Treaty, that is,
                                                                         the prohibition of discrimination laid down there?
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative
Court by order of that court of 22 October 1997 in the
case of Dr Gerhard Köbler v. Federal Minister for Science,               Action brought on 12 November 1997 by the Commission
                   Research and Technology                               of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                        (Case C-382/97)                                                              Republic
                           (98/C 7/19)                                                          (Case C-386/97)
                                                                                (98/C 7/21)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European       Communities        by     an     order     of   the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof         (Administrative        Court)    of       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
22 October 1997, which was received at the Court                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Registry on 7 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in                 on 12 November 1997 by the Commission of the
the case of Dr Gerhard Köbler v. Federal Minister for                    European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-
Science, Research and Technology on the following                        Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
question:                                                                in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                         also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Can a right be derived from Article 48 of the EC Treaty
and Articles 1 to 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1),
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
which lay down the right of workers to freedom of
movement and to access to the labour market in the
Community, to the effect that, in a salary scheme in which
remuneration depends on, inter alia, length of service,                  Ð declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
work of equal value which was performed in another                           period the laws, regulations and administrative
Member State must be taken into account in exactly the                       provisions necessary to implement Council Directive
same way as such work performed in the Member State                          95/23/EC of 22 June 1995 amending Directive 64/433/
applying that scheme?                                                        EEC on conditions for the production and marketing
                                                                             of fresh meat (1), the Hellenic Republic has failed to
                                                                             fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.
                                                                             Directive;
                                                                         Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Nordhorn by decision of that court of 30 October 1997 in
the administrative criminal proceedings against Arnoldus
                Theodorus Maria van der Laan                             Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
                        (Case C-383/97)                                  directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                         upon each Member State to which they are addressed.
                           (98/C 7/20)
                                                                         When the time limit for the transposition of the Directive
                                                                         at issue into national law expired on 1 July 1995, the
                                                                         Hellenic Republic had not adopted appropriate measures
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   for its full incorporation into Greek law.
European Communities by a decision of the Amtsgericht
Nordhorn (Nordhorn Local Court) of 30 October 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 10 November                  (1) OJ L 243, 11. 10. 1995, p. 7.
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the administrative
criminal proceedings against Arnoldus Theodorus Maria
van der Laan on the following question:


title: Case T-216/10: Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Monster Cable Products v OHIM — Live Nation (Music) UK (MONSTER ROCK) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark MONSTER ROCK — Earlier national mark MONSTERS OF ROCK — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 November 2011 — Monster Cable Products v OHIM — Live Nation (Music) UK (MONSTER ROCK)
   (Case T-216/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MONSTER ROCK - Earlier national mark MONSTERS OF ROCK - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2012/C 13/25
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Monster Cable Products, Inc. (Brisbane, California, United States) (represented by: W. Baron von der Osten-Sacken, O. Günzel and A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Live Nation (Music) UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, S. Britton and J. Summers, Solicitors)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2010 (Case R 216/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Live Nation (Music) UK Ltd and Monster Cable Products, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Monster Cable Products, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case C-318/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) lodged on 2 July 2010 — SIAT SA v Belgian State

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) lodged on 2 July 2010 — SIAT SA v Belgian State
   (Case C-318/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/44
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de Cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: SIAT SA

      Respondent: Belgian State

      Question referred

   Must Article 49 of the EC Treaty, in the version applicable to this case (the facts giving rise to the dispute having occurred prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009), be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State according to which payments for supplies or services are not to be regarded as deductible business expenses where they are made or attributed directly or indirectly to a taxpayer resident in another Member State or to a foreign establishment which, by virtue of the legislation of the country in which they are established, are not subject there to a tax on income or are subject there, for the relevant income, to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous than the one to which such income is subject in the Member State whose national legislation is at issue, unless the taxpayer proves, by any legal means, that such payments relate to genuine and proper transactions and do not exceed the normal limits, whereas such proof is not required, as a precondition for the deduction of payments for supplies or services made to a taxpayer residing in that Member State, even if the taxpayer is not subject to any tax on income or is subject to a tax regime which is appreciably more advantageous than the one laid down by the ordinary law of that State?


title: Case C-111/06: Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin — Germany) — Irene Werich v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Berlin — Germany) — Irene Werich v Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund
   (Case C-111/06) (1)

   (2008/C 142/34)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-487/12: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — Eckes-Granini v OHIM — Panini (PANINI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark PANINI — Earlier national and Community word marks GRANINI — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2013 — Eckes-Granini v OHIM — Panini (PANINI)
   (Case T-487/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark PANINI - Earlier national and Community word marks GRANINI - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2014/C 31/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany) (represented by: W. Berlit, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Panini SpA (Modène, Italy) (represented by F. Terrano, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2012 (Case R 2393/2011-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Eckes-Granini Group GmbH and Panini SpA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Eckes-Granini Group GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013


title: Case C-201/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 17 April 2013 — Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 17 April 2013 — Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW v Helena Vandersteen and Others
   (Case C-201/13)
   2013/C 189/11
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Johan Deckmyn, Vrijheidsfonds VZW

      Defendants: Helena Vandersteen, Christiane Vandersteen, Liliana Vandersteen, Isabelle Vandersteen, Rita Dupont, Amoras II CVOH, WPG Uitgevers België

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the concept of ‘parody’ an independent concept in European Union law?

               2.

               If so, must a parody satisfy the following conditions or conform to the following characteristics:

                           —

                           the display of an original character of its own (originality);

                           —

                           and such that the parody cannot reasonably be ascribed to the author of the original work;

                           —

                           be designed to provoke humour or to mock, regardless of whether any criticism thereby expressed applies to the original work or to something or someone else;

                           —

                           mention the source of the parodied work?

               3.

               Must a work satisfy any other conditions or conform to other characteristics in order to be capable of being labelled as a parody?


title: Case T-811/14: Action brought on 8 December 2014 — Unilever v OHIM — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/41

      Action brought on 8 December 2014 — Unilever v OHIM — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely)
      (Case T-811/14)
      (2015/C 073/53)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Unilever NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Fox, Solicitor)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Technopharma Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

         Details of the proceedings before OHIM

         Applicant: Applicant

         Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Fair & Lovely’ — Application for registration No 4 045 092

         Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 in Case R 1004/2013-4

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  annul the contested decision and grant a suspension of the proceedings in Case R 1004/2013-4 pending determination of the national cancellation actions against the prior national registrations and application relied on by Technopharma Ltd. in Spain, Germany, France, the Benelux ant the United Kingdom;

                  —

                  order OHIM and any intervener to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law

                  —

                  Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

                  —

                  Infringement of Rules 20(7)(c) and 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.


title: Action brought on 8 December 1997 by J. Ward, B. Ward and Mrs M. Lewis against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Comunities (Case T-308/97)

text:
C 94/26              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                   raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
                                                                   Commission.
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay
    damages in accordance with Schedule 1 to the
    application,
Ð order the Council and/or Commission to pay the
    applicant's costs.                                             Action brought on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S.
                                                                   Rowlands and E. H. S. Rowlands against the Council of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                the European Union and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-307/97)
The applicant complains of the damaging consequences
arising from the fact that, unlike the position with respect                                (98/C 94/68)
to SLOM I and II milk producers, he, as a SLOM III milk
producer, has not been compensated for the absence of                             (Language of the case: English)
quota prior to the introduction of SLOM quota.
                                                                   An action against the Council of the European Union and
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the                  the Commission of the European Communities was
applicant are the same as those raised in Case T-304/97            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Hilsdon v. Council and Commission.                                 Communities on 8 December 1997 by B. G. S. Rowlands
                                                                   and E. H. S. Rowlands, represented by Rory Hutchings,
                                                                   Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square,
                                                                   Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C.
Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis against the Council             Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages
of the European Union and the Commission of the                        in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,
                   European Communities
                       (Case T-306/97)                             Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
                         (98/C 94/67)                                  applicant's costs.
               (Language of the case: English)                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of
An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                   the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I
the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                   and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   compensated for the absence of quota prior to the
Communities on 8 December 1997 by Messrs M. C.
                                                                   introduction of SLOM quota.
Lewis, M. A. Lewis and D. C. Lewis, represented by Rory
Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New
Square, Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.                            The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                   raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
                                                                   Commission.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages
    in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the               Action brought on 8 December 1997 by J. Ward, B. Ward
    applicant's costs.                                             and Mrs M. Lewis against the Council of the European
                                                                    Union and the Commission of the European Comunities
                                                                                (Case T-308/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (98/C 94/69)
The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I
and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been
compensated for the absence of quota prior to the                  An action against the Council of the European Union and
introduction of SLOM quota.                                        the Commission of the European Communities was
 ---pagebreak--- 28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/27
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities on 8 December 1997 by J. Ward, B. Ward
and Mrs M. Lewis, represented by Rory Hutchings,
Solicitor, of Messrs Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square,                The applicant, the company which owns the vessel Albor
Lincoln's Inn, London WC2A 3RZ.                                    Uno, alleges that the defendant failed to use its exclusive
                                                                   powers in the fisheries sector when the aforementioned
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        vessel was seized, and subsequently arrested, on 16 July
                                                                   1997 by a Moroccan patrol vessel on the ground that it
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission for damages              was fishing 4,5 nautical miles off the Moroccan coast. The
    in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto,                 applicant denies this and asserts that the vessel was
                                                                   13 miles offshore when it was seized. Moreover, the
                                                                   limited measures which the Commission took merely
Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the               consisted of visiting the vessel, drawing up an expert
    applicant's costs.                                             report and replying to a fax from the applicant. Although
                                                                   it is true that the Commission called a meeting of the EU-
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Morocco Joint Committee, whose task it is to ensure the
                                                                   observance of fishing agreements, Morocco refused
The applicant challenges the damaging consequences of              systematically to attend that meeting. The relase of the
the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I          vessel was achieved after difficult negotiations undertaken
and II, he, as a SLOM II milk producer, has not been               directly and at personal level between the shipowner and
compensated for the absence of quota prior to the                  the relevant Moroccan authorities with no official
introduction of SLOM quota.                                        participation at any time, either on the part of the Spanish
                                                                   or Community authorities.
The grounds and main arguments are the same as those
raised in case T-304/97 Hilsdon v. Council and
Commission.                                                        In the applicant's view, the defendant's failure to act was
                                                                   detrimental to the right to a fair hearing of a Community
                                                                   undertaking and vessel and deprived them of protection
                                                                   since the only way of establishing the facts was by
                                                                   communicating with the Moroccan authorities, which was
                                                                   not done, and monitoring the situation by the Community
                                                                   was the only safeguard, which, by being delegated to the
Action brought on 10 December 1997 by Pescados
                                                                   Spanish authorities, was in fact denied. Moreover, the fact
Congelados Jogamar SL against the Commission of the
                                                                   that Morocco does not regard the GPS system as a means
                    European Communities
                                                                   of establishing a vessel's position and accepts only its
                        (Case T-311/97)                            naval radar reports is seriously detrimental to the rights of
                          (98/C 94/70)                             the defence of fishing vessels equipped with that system.
               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                   Finally, if it is indeed the Community which is competent
                                                                   by virtue of the fishing agreements, it falls to it to
An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   denounce the total and complete ineffectiveness of an
Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   agreement which deprives European Union citizens and
Instance of the European Communities on 10 December
                                                                   vessels of any protection, and to take measures to prevent
1997 by Pescados Congelados Jogamar SL, whose
                                                                   it or, on the contrary, to emend Community law.
registered office is at Las Palmas de Gran Canaria (Spain),
represented by Manuel de Cristóbal López, of the Madrid
Bar, with an address for service at 15 Calle Prim, Madrid.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð uphold this action for declaration of failure to act;
                                                                   Action brought on 29 December 1997 by Cordis Obst und
    declare that the European Commission's failure to
                                                                   Gemüse Grosshandel GmbH against the Commission of
    take action with regard to the seizure of the Albor
                                                                                the European Communities
    Uno constitutes a breach of the EEC Treaty (Article 38
    et seq.) and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3954/92                                    (Case T-612/97)
    of 19 December 1992 on the conclusion of the
    Agreement on relations in the sea fisheries sector                                       (98/C 94/71)
    between the European Economic Community and the
    Kingdom of Morocco and laying down provisions for
    its implementation; declare that the European                                  (Language of the case: German)
    Commission should take action itself rather than
    delegate power to the national authorities in the
    fisheries sector; and make an express order requiring          An action against the Commission of the European
    the European Commission to pay the costs incurred.             Communities was brought before the Court of First