title: Case C-492/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg by decision of that court of 14 October 2004 in the case of Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH (formerly Riess Laser Bandstahlschnitte GmbH) against Finanzamt Emmendingen

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg by decision of that court of 14 October 2004 in the case of Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH (formerly Riess Laser Bandstahlschnitte GmbH) against Finanzamt Emmendingen
   (Case C-492/04)
   (2005/C 31/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Baden-Württemberg (Baden-Württemberg Finance Court) (Germany) of 14 October 2004, received at the Court Registry on 1 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lasertec Gesellschaft für Stanzformen mbH (formerly Riess Laser Bandstahlschnitte GmbH) against Finanzamt Emmendingen on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 57(1) EC to be interpreted as meaning that the restrictions of the movement of capital to or from third countries which ‘exist’ on 31 December 1993 are those for which the legislative process has already been completed by the national legislature on that date, or those which under the national legislation are already applicable on that date to existing factual situations?

               2.

               Is Article 56(1) EC in conjunction with Article 58 EC to be interpreted as meaning that the – partial – taxation as a distribution of profits of payments of interest by a capital company resident in a Member State to a loan provider in a third country who is at the same time a shareholder in the capital company is thereby prohibited because this is arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction of the free movement of capital between a Member State and a third country?


title: Case T-72/05: Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Deutsche Telekom AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/23

         Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Deutsche Telekom AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case T-72/05)
   (2005/C 115/45)
   Language of the Case: German
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 February 2005 by Deutsche Telekom AG, Bonn, Germany, represented by J.-C. Gaedertz and D.R. Marschollek, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 15 December 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               Community trade mark sought:

               The word mark 'Telekom Global Net' for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 (Electric instruments, printed matter, advertising, financial and real estate affairs, telecommunications, transport and storage, education, computer programming…) — Application No 2 168 169.

               Decision of the Examiner:

               Refusal of the application for almost all of the goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42.

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Dismissal of the appeal.

               Pleas in law:

                           —

                           The mark applied for displays no descriptive character in relation to the goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

                           —

                           The mark applied for has sufficient distinctive character within the meaning of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case C-18/09: Action brought on 14 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/27

         Action brought on 14 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-18/09)
   (2009/C 69/49)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and L. Lozano Palacios, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by maintaining in force Ley 48/2003, de 26 noviembre, de regimen económico y de prestación de servicios de los puertos de interés general (Law 48/2003 of 26 November 2003 on the economic rules and supply of services for ports of general interest) and, in particular Article 24(5) and Article 27(1), (2) and (4) thereof, which establish a system of rebates and exemptions for harbour dues, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community Law (1) and, in particular, Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries;

               —

               order Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Spanish law provides for a series of exemptions and rebates relating to harbour dues. Those exemptions and rebates depend on the ports of departure or destination of the vessels and have the consequence that more favourable tariffs are applied, first, to traffic between the Spanish archipelagos and Ceuta and Melilla and, second, to traffic between those ports and ports of the European Union and, third, between ports of the European Union. The Commission takes the view that that legislation is discriminatory.
   The Kingdom of Spain, which invoked the particular geographic situation of the ports concerned, has not justified either the need for or the proportionality of that measure. Despite having promised to amend the legislation at issue, as far as the Commission is aware, no legislation has been adopted to put an end to the infringement.

      (1)  OJ L 378, p. 1.


title: Case C-181/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Portugal) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v ANA-Aeroportos de Portugal SA (Air transport — Airports — Groundhandling — Levying of a fee for ground administration and supervision)

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 5 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto — Portugal) — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v ANA-Aeroportos de Portugal SA
   (Case C-181/06) (1)

   (Air transport - Airports - Groundhandling - Levying of a fee for ground administration and supervision)
   (2007/C 199/18)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Referring court
   Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG

      Defendant: ANA — Aeroportos de Portugal SA,
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal — Interpretation of Article 16(3) of Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports (OJ 1996 L 272, p. 36) — Access to the groundhandling market at Community airports — Levying of a fee for access to the market in ground administrative assistance and supervision services
   Operative part of the judgment
   Community law precludes rules of national law such as those provided for by Article 10(1) of Decree No 12/99 of 30 July 1999, and Article 18(2) of Decree-Law No 120/90 of 21 March 1990, as amended by Decree-Law No 280/99 of 26 July 1999, unless the fee for ground administration and supervision provided for by that legislation is payable as the consideration for some or all of the services defined in paragraph 1 of the Annex to Council Directive 96/67/EC of 15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports and does not constitute a second charge for services already paid for through another fee or tax. If the examination carried out by the referring court discloses that the fee at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a fee for access to the airport installations, it is a matter for that court to ascertain whether the fee at issue meets the criteria of relevance, objectivity, transparency and non-discrimination as specified in Article 16(3) of Directive 96/67.

      (1)  OJ C 154, 1.7.2006.


title: Case C-601/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 October 2016 — European Commission v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/80/EC — Article 12(2) — National compensation schemes for victims of violent intentional crime guaranteeing fair and appropriate compensation — National scheme not covering all violent intentional crimes committed on the national territory)

text:
               12.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 462/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 11 October 2016 — European Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-601/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/80/EC - Article 12(2) - National compensation schemes for victims of violent intentional crime guaranteeing fair and appropriate compensation - National scheme not covering all violent intentional crimes committed on the national territory))
   (2016/C 462/02)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Traversa and F. Moro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by G. Palatiello and E. De Bonis, avvocati dello Stato)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Moro, M. Chavrier and K. Pleśniak, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to guarantee the existence, in cross-border situations, of a compensation scheme for victims of all violent intentional crimes committed on its territory, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2004/80/EC of 29 April 2004 relating to compensation to crime victims;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, Chancery Division, by order of that court of 2 October 1998, in the case of 1. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft and 2. Hoechst UK Ltd against 1. Inland Revenue Commissioners and 2. HM Attorney General (Case C-410/98) (1999/C 1/20)

text:
4.1.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 1/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                  established in a Member State rely on the specific rules on
Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                       jurisdiction set out in that Convention against a plaintiff
Chancery Division, by order of that court of 2 October                   domiciled in Canada?
1998, in the case of 1. Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft
and 2. Hoechst UK Ltd against 1. Inland Revenue                          Do the rules on jurisdiction specific to matters relating to
         Commissioners and 2. HM Attorney General                        insurance set out in Article 7 et seq. of the Brussels
                                                                         Convention apply to matters relating to reinsurance?
                         (Case C-410/98)
                           (1999/C 1/20)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                    Appeal brought on 23 November 1998 by the
Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division,                       Commission of the European Communities against the
Chancery Division, of 2 October 1998, which was                          judgment delivered on 17 September 1998 by the First
received at the Court Registry on 17 November 1998, for                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
a preliminary ruling in the case of 1. Hoechst                           Communities in Case T-50/96 between Primex Produkte
Aktiengesellschaft and 2. Hoechst UK Ltd against 1.                      Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, Gebr. Kruse GmbH and
Inland Revenue Commissioners and 2. HM Attorney                          Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, supported by the United
General, on questions which are identical to those in Case               Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the
C-397/98 (1), Metallgesellschaft Ltd and Others against                           Commission of the European Communities
Commissioners of Inland Revenue and HM Attorney
                                                                                (Case C-417/98 P)
General.
                                                                                (1999/C 1/22)
(1) Published in this Official Journal at page 7.
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 September
                                                                         1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                         of the European Communities in Case T-50/96 between
                                                                         Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH & Co. KG, Gebr.
                                                                         Kruse GmbH and Interporc Im- und Export GmbH,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel                   supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
de Versailles (12th Chamber) by judgment of that court                   Northern Ireland, and the Commission of the European
of 5 November 1998 in the case of SocieÂteÂ Group                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Josi Reinsurance Company SA against Compagnie                            the European Communities on 23 November 1998 by the
d'Assurances Universal General Insurance Company                         Commission of the European Communities, represented
                               UGIC'                                    by Jean-Louis Dewost, Director-General of the
                                                                         Commission's Legal Service, and Götz zur Hausen, Legal
                         (Case C-412/98)
                                                                         Adviser, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                           (1999/C 1/21)                                 Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
                                                                         its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d'Appel
(Court of Appeal), Versailles (12th Chamber) of                          Ð Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance
5 November 1998, received at the Court Registry on                            of 17 September 1998 in Case T-50/96.
19 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
SocieÂteÂ Group Josi Reinsurance Company SA against                      Ð Dismiss the action in that case.
Compagnie d'Assurances Universal General Insurance
Company UGIC' on the following questions:                               Ð Order the respondents to pay the costs.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Does the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 on
jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and               The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
commercial matters apply not only to intra-Community'                   Case C-163/98 P (1).
disputes but also to disputes which are integrated into the
Community'? More particularly, can a defendant                           (1) OJ C 258, 15.8.1998, p. 14.


title: Case T-496/14: Action brought on 26 June 2014  — Berry Investments v Council

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/53

         Action brought on 26 June 2014 — Berry Investments v Council
   (Case T-496/14)
   2014/C 292/65
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Berry Investments (Monrovia, Liberia) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 4 36  357 ,19, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

               —

               in the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the applicant 4/5 of the above amount, that is, the sum of EUR 3 49  085 ,75, as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts, with interest from the date when the applicant was unlawfully divested of its deposits (29/03/2013) until the date of delivery of the judgment in this case and with daily interest from the delivery of the judgment in these proceedings until full payment;

               —

               in the further alternative, order the defendant to pay such amount as the General Court shall determine to the applicant as compensation for the damage caused to the applicant by the defendant’s unlawful acts;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50  000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant by the infringement of the principle of equal treatment;

               —

               order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 50  000, as compensation for the non-material damage caused to the applicant by the infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, under the second paragraph of Article 340 TFEU the applicant seeks from the General Court of the European Union, which has jurisdiction under Article 268 TFEU, reparation in respect of the damage it has suffered because of the defendant’s unlawful conduct.
   The applicant maintains that that damage arose when the defendant, acting ultra vires and contrary to secondary EU law and to the general principles of EU law, imposed and, consequently, caused the reduction of the applicant’s bank deposits in Cyprus Popular Bank Public Co Ltd. (Laiki Τrapeza) and, in any event, contributed to it.
   In particular, the applicant maintains that the defendant committed the following infringements of fundamental rights and general principles of EU law:

               —

               First, infringement of the right to property;

               —

               Second, infringement of the principle of equal treatment· and

               —

               Third, infringement of the right to effective judicial protection and the principle of legal certainty.

               —

               The applicant submits that the conditions, as laid down in settled case-law, for the defendant incurring non-contractual liability to pay compensation to it, are satisfied.


title: Judgment of the Court of 22 November 2012 in Case E-17/11 — Aresbank SA v Landsbankinn hf., Fjármálaeftirlitið (the Financial Supervisory Authority) and the Icelandic State (Directive 94/19/EC — Directive 2000/12/EC — Directive 2006/48/EC — Admissibility — National legislation adopting provisions of EEA law to regulate purely internal situations — Notion of deposit — Interbank loans — Mutual recognition of an authorisation for the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions — Applicability of decisions of the EEA Joint Committee)

text:
               14.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 75/13

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 22 November 2012
   in Case E-17/11
   Aresbank SA v Landsbankinn hf., Fjármálaeftirlitið (the Financial Supervisory Authority) and the Icelandic State
   (Directive 94/19/EC — Directive 2000/12/EC — Directive 2006/48/EC — Admissibility — National legislation adopting provisions of EEA law to regulate purely internal situations — Notion of deposit — Interbank loans — Mutual recognition of an authorisation for the taking up and pursuit of the business of credit institutions — Applicability of decisions of the EEA Joint Committee)
   2013/C 75/07
   In Case E-17/11 Aresbank SA v Landsbankinn hf., Fjármálaeftirlitið (the Financial Supervisory Authority) and the Icelandic State — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Hæstiréttur Íslands (Supreme Court of Iceland), concerning the interpretation of the term deposit in Article 1(1) of Council Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 22 November 2012, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 1(1) of Council Directive 94/19/EC on deposit-guarantee schemes is to be interpreted as meaning that funds which a lending credit institution delivers to a borrowing credit institution, and which must be repaid on a predetermined date, together with interest which has been specially negotiated, are to be regarded as a deposit within the meaning of that provision. This applies even though the funds are not placed in a special account in the name of the lending credit institution, the borrowing credit institution has not issued any special documents recording the receipt of the funds, has not paid premiums in respect of the funds to the Depositors’ and Investors’ Guarantee Fund, and the funds have not been entered as a deposit in the books of the borrowing credit institution.
               However, such funds transferred from one credit institution to another, pursuant to a loan agreement, constitute deposits not covered by the guarantee schemes provided for in Directive 94/19/EC. Such funds are thus not eligible for repayment under that Directive. Therefore, a distinction can be made between a functional definition of eligible deposits under Directive 94/19/EC, which is based on Article 1(1) read in light of Article 2, and a technical definition, which also includes deposits not covered by the guarantee schemes provided for in Directive 94/19/EC and, thus, not eligible for repayment. It is for the national court to ascertain whether a technical or a functional definition of deposit is to be applied under national law for the purposes of the present case.

               2.

               For the purpose of determining whether a loan between two credit institutions in the EEA is a deposit within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 94/19/EC, it is of no significance that the home State of the borrowing bank has availed itself of the authority established in Article 7(2) of Directive 94/19/EC to exclude deposits by financial institutions from deposit guarantee.

               3.

               Where a credit institution lending funds on the interbank market is authorised to accept deposits from the general public, it is of no significance for the qualification of an interbank loan by this institution to another credit institution as a deposit within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Directive 94/19/EC that it does not accept such deposits but finances its operations by means of contributions from its owner and through the issue of financial instruments, subsequently re-lending that money on the interbank market, unless the authorisation of the institution to take up and pursue the business of a credit institution has been withdrawn by the competent authority.


title: Case T-346/14: Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council

text:
               4.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 253/37

         Action brought on 14 May 2014 — Yanukovych v Council
   (Case T-346/14)
   2014/C 253/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Kyiv, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley, QC)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 66, p. 26), as amended by Council Decision 2014/216/CFSP of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 91) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 (OJ L 66, p. 1) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, as amended by Council Regulation (EU) 381/2014 of 14 April 2014 (OJ L 111, p. 33), insofar as they apply to the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council of the European Union (‘the Council’) lacked a proper legal basis for the Decision and the Regulation. Arguments in support of the plea include (a) that the conditions for the Council relying on Article 29 TEU were not fulfilled by the Decision. Amongst other things: (i) The Council’s expressly invoked objectives (consolidating the rule of law and respect for human rights in Ukraine) could not, as a matter of fact, be sustained by the Council, which then stated grounds for designation (linked to alleged embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer outside Ukraine, which the Applicant denies) which were not consistent with, and failed to comply with, the stated or any relevant objectives of Article 21 TEU. (ii) The Decision and the Regulation are contrary to other relevant objectives identified in Article 21 in that they failed to ‘consolidate and support democracy ... [and] the principles of international law’, in particular by wrongly asserting, and acting on the basis that, the legitimate democratically elected President of Ukraine, the applicant, was a ‘former President’, contrary to the law of Ukraine and International law, and by providing support for the so-called ‘interim President and government’, who have not been lawfully and democratically elected, and who took what power they have from time to time by illegal force, contrary to the rule of law, democratic principles and international law. (b) The conditions for relying on Article 215 TFEU were not fulfilled because there was no valid decision under Chapter 2 of Title V TEU. (c) There was no sufficient link for Article 215 TFEU to be relied on against the applicant.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council misused its powers. The Council’s actual purpose in implementing the Decision (and, therefore, the Regulation) was in essence to try to win favour with the so-called ‘interim regime’ of Ukraine so that Ukraine proceeded with closer ties with the EU (such closer ties having been rejected by the democratically elected President of Ukraine and his Government), and not the rationales stated on the face of the Decision and the Regulation.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the Council failed to state reasons. The statement of reasons in the Decision and the Regulation for including the applicant (in addition to being wrong) are formulaic, inappropriate and deficient in required particularity.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the applicant failed to fulfil the stated criteria for a person to be listed at the relevant time. Amongst other things, the Council failed to provide relevant information, but so far as he is aware, the applicant (a) had not at the time been identified by any judicial or other relevant body as being responsible for the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds or their illegal transfer, and (b) was not at the time a person subject to criminal proceedings in Ukraine to investigate crimes in connection with the embezzlement of Ukrainian State funds and their illegal transfer abroad.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Council made manifest errors of assessment in including the applicant in the contested measures. Amongst other things, the Council had no and, in any event, no ‘concrete’ evidence demonstrating that the allegations against the applicant were ‘materially accurate’, and wrongly relied on assertions by the illegitimate so-called ‘interim regime’ who were seeking to usurp power, and had a clear incentive to make such allegations for improper purposes.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s defence rights have been breached and/or that he has been denied effective judicial protection. Amongst other things, the Council has failed to provide the applicant with a full statement of reasons, including the evidence against him, and failed to provide him with precise information and material said to justify the asset freeze, and he has been obliged to make this application in an unfairly short time period.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the applicant’s rights to property under Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, have been breached in that, amongst other things, the restrictive measures are an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on those rights.


title: Case T-198/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Germany v Commission (Interim relief — Limit values for antimony, arsenic, barium, lead and mercury in toys — Refusal of the Commission to approve, in their entirety, the national provisions notified by the German authorities maintaining the limit values for those substances — Application for provisional measures — Admissibility — Urgency — Fumus boni juris — Balance of interests)

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/23

         Order of the President of the General Court of 15 May 2013 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-198/12 R)
   (Interim relief - Limit values for antimony, arsenic, barium, lead and mercury in toys - Refusal of the Commission to approve, in their entirety, the national provisions notified by the German authorities maintaining the limit values for those substances - Application for provisional measures - Admissibility - Urgency - Fumus boni juris - Balance of interests)
   2013/C 189/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and A. Wiedmann, Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Patakia and G. Wilms, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for provisional approval to continue to apply the national provisions notified by the German authorities concerning the limit values for antimony, arsenic, barium, lead and mercury in toys until the General Court has decided on the substance of the case.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The European Commission is ordered to authorise the continued application of the national provisions notified by the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the limit values for antimony, arsenic, barium, lead and mercury in toys until the General Court has delivered its judgment in the main proceedings.

               2.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed as to the remainder.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Order of the court of first instance of 9 February2004 in Case T-120/03 Synopharm G,bH & Co. KG v Officefor Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Communitytrade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/64

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 9 February 2004
   in Case T-120/03 Synopharm G,bH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   (2004/C 106/131)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-120/03 between Synopharm GmbH & Co. KG, represented by G. Hodapp, lawyer, and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Schneider and U. Pfleghar), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Pentafarma – Sociedad Técnico-Medicinal Lda, represented by J. Pereira da Cruz, lawyer – Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 January 2003 (Case R 44/2002-3) relating to the opposition proceedings between Synopharm GmbH & Co. KG and Pentafarma – Sociedad Técnico-Medicinal Lda – the Court of first instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 February 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to rule on the action;

               2.

               The applicant and the intervener shall bear their own costs and each pay half of those incurred by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ 2003 C 171.


title: Case T-242/12: Action brought on 4 June 2012 — SNCF v Commission

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/11

         Action brought on 4 June 2012 — SNCF v Commission
   (Case T-242/12)
   2012/C 273/19
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Beurier, O. Billard and V. Landes, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision in its entirety;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1616 final of 9 March 2012 declaring incompatible with the internal market the aid measures implemented by the French Republic in favour of Sernam SCS (1) by, inter alia, recapitalisation, granting guarantees, and the applicant’s waiving of claims against Sernam.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of the applicant’s rights of defence in that, by taking a position in the contested decision that did not appear in the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission prevented the applicant from making known effectively its views on the relevance of that position.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in that the ‘Sernam 2’ decision (2) created a situation that legitimised the applicant’s expectation that the en bloc disposal of Sernam’s assets was lawful.

               3.

               Third plea in law: breach of the Commission’s duty of care and of the principle of legal certainty in that the Commission adopted a decision almost seven years after Sernam’s assets had been disposed of en bloc.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: errors of law and of fact in that the Commission took the view that the conditions referred to in Article 3(2) of the ‘Sernam 2’ decision had not been complied with. This plea is amplified in six parts alleging errors that the Commission ostensibly committed by taking the view:

                           —

                           that the disposal of Sernam’s assets en bloc did not take place on 30 June 2005;

                           —

                           that it did not constitute a sale;

                           —

                           that it constituted a transfer of Sernam SA in its entirety (assets and liabilities);

                           —

                           that it was not limited to the assets of Sernam SA, but was increased by EUR 59 million;

                           —

                           that it did not take place through a transparent and open procedure;

                           —

                           and that the ultimate purpose of a sale of assets was not observed.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law: error of law in that the Commission took the view that the obligation to recover EUR 41 million of aid was transferred to Financière Sernam and to its subsidiaries, whereas Financière Sernam cannot be regarded as having benefited from an advantage inasmuch as it paid the market price for Sernam’s assets en bloc.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law: inadequate statement of reasons and errors of fact and of law in that the Commission took the view that the measures provided for in the memorandum of understanding relating to the transfer of Sernam’s assets en bloc constituted State aid, whereas the price paid for the acquisition was a market price resulting from an open, transparent, unconditional and non-discriminatory tendering procedure and was well below the liquidation costs that the applicant would have had to bear had Sernam been placed in liquidation by court order.

      (1)  State Aid No C 37/2008 — France — Enforcing the ‘Sernam 2’ decision — SA.12522.

      (2)  Commission Decision 2006/367/EC of 20 October 2004 on the State aid partly implemented by France for the ‘Sernam’ company (notified under document number C(2004) 3940) (OJ 2006 L 140, p. 1).


title: Case C-356/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du Travail de Nivelles, Section de Nivelles — 2ème Chambre by judgment of that Court of 24 September 2002 in the case of Anne Hennecart against Office National de l'Emploi

text:
23.11.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 289/17
Action brought on 2 October 2002 by the Commission of                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                 Travail de Nivelles, Section de Nivelles — 2ème Chambre
                                                                       by judgment of that Court of 24 September 2002 in
                                                                       the case of Anne Hennecart against Office National de
                                                                                l’Emploi
                         (Case C-352/02)
                                                                                (Case C-356/02)
                         (2002/C 289/28)
                                                                                (2002/C 289/29)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before             European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal du Travail
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 Octo-            de Nivelles, Section de Nivelles — 2ème Chambre (Labour
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                Court of Nivelles, Nivelles Section — 2nd Chamber) (Belgium)
represented by Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service.             of 24 September 2002, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       3 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Anne
                                                                       Hennecart against Office National de l’Emploi on the following
                                                                       question:
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Does Community law — and more particularly the principles
                                                                       of citizenship and of freedom of movement of citizens
—     declare that, by failing to adopt, and in any event to           provided for by Articles [17] and 18 of the EC Treaty —
      communicate, the laws, regulations and administrative            preclude the accrual and continuation of entitlement to a
      provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/14/           social security benefit conferred by a Member State, the
      EC ( 1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of         recipient not being required to remain available on the
      8 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the               employment market of that State, being made subject to a
      Member States relating to the noise emission in the              condition of residence or habitual residence within that State?
      environment by equipment for use outdoors, the Hellenic
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      directive;
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
                                                                       Tribunal Administrativo by order of that Court of 3 July
                                                                       2002 in the appeal brought by Fazenda Pública against
                                                                                Sonae Distribução SGPS, SA
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-357/02)
The Member States are required by the binding character of
                                                                                (2002/C 289/30)
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC to
adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
law before the expiry of the time-limit laid down for that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
the Commission. That time-limit expired on 3 July 2001                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
without the Hellenic Republic having notified to the Com-              European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal
mission the provisions transposing the directive in question           Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Tribunal) of 3 July
into national law.                                                     2002, received at the Court Registry on 3 October 2002, for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the appeal brought by Fazenda Pública
                                                                       against Sonae Distribução SGPS, SA on the following question:
( 1) OJ L 162 of 3.7.2000, p. 1.                                       Are Articles 1 and 2 of Order No 904/95 of 18 July 1995 and
                                                                       Article 408(1) of the Código do Mercado de Valores Mobiliá-
                                                                       rios (approved by Decreto-lei No 142-A/91 of 10 April 1991,
                                                                       in the version in force at the material time rather than the later
                                                                       version approved by Decreto-lei No 486/99 of 13 November


title: Case C-555/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Merck Canada Inc. v Accord Healthcare Limited and Others

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral (Portugal) lodged on 28 October 2013 — Merck Canada Inc. v Accord Healthcare Limited and Others
   (Case C-555/13)
   2014/C 15/11
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Arbitral

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Merck Canada Inc.

      Defendants: Accord Healthcare Limited, Alter SA, Labochem Ltd, Synthon BV, Ranbaxy Portugal — Comércio e Desenvolvimento de Produtos Farmacêuticos, Unipessoal Lda

      Question referred

   May Article 13 of Regulation No 469/2009 (1) be interpreted as permitting, by means of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, the period for exclusive exploitation of the patented invention to be more than fifteen years from the date of the first authorisation to place the medicinal product in question on the market within the Community (not including the extension provided for in Article 13(3) of that regulation)?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (Codified version) (OJ 2009 L 152, p. 1).


title: Case C-463/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 24(1), 25(b), 62(2), 63 and 64(1) — Meaning of ‘supply of services’ — Subscription contract for the supply of consulting services — Chargeable event — Need for proof of the actual supply of services — Chargeability of the tax)

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad — Varna — Bulgaria) — Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-463/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 24(1), 25(b), 62(2), 63 and 64(1) - Meaning of ‘supply of services’ - Subscription contract for the supply of consulting services - Chargeable event - Need for proof of the actual supply of services - Chargeability of the tax))
   (2015/C 354/13)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad — Varna

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Asparuhovo Lake Investment Company OOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Varna pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘supply of services’ includes subscription contracts for the supply of consulting services to an undertaking, in particular those of a legal, commercial or financial nature, under which a supplier has agreed to be available to the customer during the term of the contract.

               2.

               As regards subscription contracts for consulting services, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Articles 62(2), 63 and 64(1) of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted as meaning that the chargeable event and the chargeability of the tax occur upon the expiry of the period in respect of which the payment has been agreed, irrespective of whether and how often the customer has actually made use of the supplier’s services.

      (1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.


title: Case C-519/12: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság v Hochtief Solutions AG (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(1)(a) — Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ )

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/20

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 17 October 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hungary) — OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság v Hochtief Solutions AG
   (Case C-519/12) (1)

   (Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(1)(a) - Concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’)
   2013/C 367/34
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Kúria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: OTP Bank Nyilvánosan Működő Részvénytársaság

      Defendant: Hochtief Solutions AG

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Kúria — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Jurisdiction of the court of a Member State in matters relating to a contract — Action by a creditor, on the basis of a credit agreement, against a company holding a controlling share in the debtor company which is a party to the contract pursuant to the specific national rules governing the liability of the first company

      Operative part of the judgment

   An action such as that in the main proceedings, in which national legislation renders a person liable for the debts of a company which he controls, where that person did not comply with the reporting obligations following the acquisition of that company, cannot be regarded as concerning ‘matters relating to a contract’ for the purposes of Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 7 June 1995 in the case of ARO Lease BV v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen, Amsterdam (Case C-190/95)

text:
No C 208/ 14             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
      as such formed part of the decision to impose a fine, that         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landskrona
      cartel played a role in many places in the Commission's            Tingsratt by judgment of 14 June 1995 in the case of the
      decision and also had a decisive influence on the                               Public Prosecutor v. Harry Franzen
      judgment of the Court of First Instance .                                                 ( Case C-l 89/95 )
— Infringements of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty: the                                          ( 95/C 208/27 )
      Court of First Instance committed serious errors in its
      treatment of the established facts . In particular it several      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      times took no account of relevant considerations . That is
                                                                         European Communities by a judgment of the Landskrona
      true of market delimitation, the alleged arrangements              Tingsratt ( Landskrona District Court) of 14 June 1995 ,
      between the applicant and Trefilunion, the alleged quota           which was received at the Court Registry on 16 June 1995 ,
      and price agreements with the Benelux producers                    for a preliminary ruling in the case of Public Prosecutor v.
      concerning the German market and the alleged quota                 Harry Franzen on the following questions :
      and price agreements concerning the Benelux market.
      The judgment completely ignores the applicant's
      submissions at the hearing as well as the applicant's              1 . Is a statutory monopoly such as the Systembolaget
      replies to the written questions asked by the Court of                  compatible with Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome ?
      First Instance . Likewise the Court of First Instance failed
      to observe the preconditions of Regulation No 67/67                2 . Is a statutory monopoly such as the Systembolaget
      ( group exemptions ).                                                   contrary to Article 37 of the Treaty of Rome and, if so,
                                                                              must the monopoly be abolished or is an adjustment
— Infringements of Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 : the                    possible ?
      Court of First Instance is wrong at law to assume that
      there is no need in an individual case to weigh up                 3 . If a monopoly such as the Systembolaget is to be
      mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the                         regarded as being contrary to Article 37, is any period of
      determination of the fine . Similarly wrong at law is the               adjustment available or should it have been abolished or
      Court 's assessment of the existence of the lawful                      an adjustment made by 1 January 1995 ?
      structural crisis cartel . The Court further fails to
       recognize that the applicant was in any event entitled to
      plead an inevitable mistake concerning the prohibition .
       Finally the Court misdirected itself in law in applying the
       principle of proportionality.
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
( 2 ) O ) No L 260 , 6 . 9 . 1989 , p . 1 .                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,
                                                                         Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 7 June 1995 in the
                                                                         case of ARO Lease BV v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst
                                                                                Grote Ondernemingen, Amsterdam
                                                                                ( Case C-l 90/95 )
References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                                                ( 95/C 208/28 )
Circondariale di Roma — Sezioni distaccate di Castelnuovo
di Porto e di Tivoli by orders of that court of 1 8 February
 1995 ( C-l 86/95 ) and 27 February 1995 ( C-187/95 ) in                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
criminal proceedings pending before that court against                   European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechtshof
Luciano Iommi and Others , Angelo Deodati and Luchini                     ( Regional Court of Appeal ), Amsterdam, of 7 June 1995
                                   Aldo                                  which was received at the Court Registry on 19 June 1995 ,
                                                                          for a preliminary ruling in the case of ARO Lease BV v.
                 ( Cases C-l 86/95 and C-l 87/95 )                       Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen ( Head
                              ( 95/C 208/26 )                            of the Large Undertakings Unit of the Revenue Office ),
                                                                          Amsterdam, on the following question :
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by orders of the Pretura                            Must Article 9 ( 1 ) of the Sixth Council Directive
 Circondariale di Roma — Sezioni distaccate di Castelnuovo                77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
 di Porto e di Tivoli ( District Magistrate 's Court, Rome —              laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
 Castelnuovo di Porto and Tivoli Sections ), of 18 February               common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
 1995 ( C-l 86/95 ) and 27 February 1995 , which were                     assessment, be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person
 received at the Court Registry on 15 June 1995 for a                     established in the Netherlands who, as such, makes
 preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending                   available to third parties approximately 6 800 passenger
 before that court against Iommi Luciano and Others,                      cars under operational-lease agreements , of which
 Angelo Deodati and Aldo Luchini on questions identical to                approximately 800 were purchased and made available in
 those in Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-141 /95 (')•                    Belgium, where ARO does not have an office, supplies those
                                                                          services from a fixed establishment in Belgium ?
 (') See Of No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .


title: Case C-348/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 July 2015 — Stadt Wiener Neustadt

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 10 July 2015 — Stadt Wiener Neustadt
   (Case C-348/15)
   (2015/C 363/23)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant on a point of law: Stadt Wiener Neustadt

      Intervener: A.S.A. Abfall Service AG

      Respondent authority: Niederösterreichische Landesregierung

      Question referred

   Does EU law, in particular Directive 2011/92/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, in particular Article 1(4) thereof, or Council Directive 85/337/EEC (2) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, in particular Article 1(5) thereof, preclude a provision of national law whereby projects subject to an obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment, which have not benefited from a consent granted under the national Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungsgesetz 2000 (Law on Environmental Impact Assessments of 2000) (UVP-G 2000) but have benefited only from consents granted under individual sectoral laws (such as the Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz (Law on Waste Management)) which, since 19 August 2009 (date of entry into force of the UVP-G-Novelle 2009 (Law of 2009 amending the Law on Environmental Impact Assessments)), can no longer be annulled following the expiry of a three-year time-limit laid down in national law (Paragraph 3(6) of the UVP-G 2000), are regarded as approved under the UVP-G 2000, or is such a provision consistent with the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations established in EU law?

      (1)  OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.


title: Case C-111/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — GST — Sarviz AG Germania v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite (Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Person liable for payment of VAT — Erroneous payment of VAT by the person to whom the supply is made — Liability to VAT of the supplier of services — Refusal to grant the supplier of services a refund of the VAT)

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — GST — Sarviz AG Germania v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite
   (Case C-111/14) (1)

   ((Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Person liable for payment of VAT - Erroneous payment of VAT by the person to whom the supply is made - Liability to VAT of the supplier of services - Refusal to grant the supplier of services a refund of the VAT))
   (2015/C 205/13)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: GST — Sarviz AG Germania

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ Plovdiv pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 193 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2010/88/EU of 7 December 2010, must be interpreted as meaning that the only person liable to pay the value added tax is the taxable person supplying services, where those services were supplied from a fixed establishment located in the Member State in which the value added tax is payable.

               2.

               Article 194 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2010/88, must be interpreted as not permitting the tax authorities of a Member State to regard as liable for the payment of value added tax the recipient of services supplied from a fixed establishment of the supplier, where both the latter and the recipient of those services are established in the territory of the same Member State, even if that recipient has already paid that tax on the mistaken assumption that the supplier did not have a fixed establishment in that State.

               3.

               The principle of the neutrality of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a national provision which permits the tax authorities to refuse to grant the supplier of services a refund of the value added tax which the supplier has paid, when the recipient of those services, who has also paid the value added tax in respect of the same services, is refused the right of deduction on the ground that that recipient did not have the corresponding tax document, any adjustment of tax documents being precluded under national law where a definitive tax adjustment notice exists.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.


C 171/42              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                      19.7.2003
that Sogecable would offer its shareholders the option of                       Removal from the register of Case T-253/01 (1)
participating in a subordinated loan of EUR 175 million, to be
underwritten in its entirety by Telefónica. Finally, the parties                                 (2003/C 171/70)
agreed that neither of their debts should exceed, prior to the
concentration, EUR 425 million and 705 million respectively,                               (Language of the case: English)
with a maximum limit of EUR 1 130 million.
                                                                        By order of 30 April 2003 the President of the Fourth Chamber
                                                                        of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
In support of their claims, the applicants allege that the              ordered the removal from the register of Case T-253/01: UPS
contested decisions contain manifest errors of assessment of            Europe NV/SA v Commission of the European Communities.
the facts complained of. They also take the view that the
Commission has been negligent inasmuch as it did not fully              (1 ) OJ C 31 of 02.02.2002.
analyse the facts. Moreover, the defendant’s assessment also
infringes the principle of equality in that it diverges from
previous decisions in which it was held that it was necessary
to submit a new notification.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-24/03 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/71)
Finally, the applicant companies allege that the Commission
misused its powers.                                                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        By order of 30 April 2003 the President of the First Chamber
( 1) Case T-346/02 Cableuropa and Others (OJ 2003 C 19, p. 40) and      of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
     Case T-347/02 Aunacable and Others (OJ 2003 C 19, p. 40).          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-24/03:
                                                                        Antonio Aresu v Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 70 of 22.03.2003.


title: Case T-354/06: Action brought on 4 December 2006 — BAM NBM Wegenbouw and HBG Civiel v Commission

text:
               27.1.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 20/22

         Action brought on 4 December 2006 — BAM NBM Wegenbouw and HBG Civiel v Commission
   (Case T-354/06)
   (2007/C 20/33)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Claimants: BAM NBM Wegenbouw BV and HBG Civiel BV (represented by: M.B.W. Biesheuvel and J.K. de Pree, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Commission decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL — C(2006) 4090 final) or at least set that decision aside to the extent to which it found that BAM NBM and HBG Civiel had breached Article 81 EC, fines were imposed on BAM NBM and HBG Civiel in that regard, BAM NBM and HBG Civiel were enjoined to put an end to that breach and to refrain in future from any of the acts or conduct referred to in Article 1, and from any acts or conduct having the same or similar objective or consequence, and to the extent to which that decision is addressed to BAM NBM and HBG Civiel;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The claimants are challenging the Commission's decision of 13 September 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case No COMP/38.456 — Bitumen — NL), by which a fine was imposed on the claimants for breach of Article 81 EC.
   In support of their action, the claimants submit, in the first place, that the decision is at variance with Article 81 EC and with Articles 7 and 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003, as well as being contrary to the principle laid down in Article 253 EC that measures must state the reasons on which they are based. In the opinion of the claimants, the Commission incorrectly established and interpreted the facts, and there is insufficient evidence to support the contention that the claimants infringed Article 81 EC.
   In the alternative, the claimants submit that Article 2 of the decision is at variance with Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 and the guidelines on setting fines. (1). In the claimants' view, the gravity of the alleged infringement was incorrectly assessed. As a consequence, they argue, the infringement was wrongly classified as being very serious and the fine imposed was disproportionate.
   In conclusion, it is submitted, the adoption of the decision was accompanied by a breach of essential procedural requirements, inter alia in that the Commission did not provide the claimants with any opportunity to examine the responses of the oil companies and the other road construction companies to the heads of complaint raised, even though the claimants had made a request in that regard.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 and Article 65(5) of the ECSC Treaty (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).


title: Case T-247/04: Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Asociación de Exportadores Españoles de Productos Farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) y Española de Desarrollo e Impulso Farmacéutico, SA (Edifa) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/32

         Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Asociación de Exportadores Españoles de Productos Farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) y Española de Desarrollo e Impulso Farmacéutico, SA (Edifa) against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-247/04)
   (2004/C 217/57)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2004 by Asociación de Exportadores Españoles de Productos Farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) y Española de Desarrollo e Impulso Farmacéutico, SA (Edifa), established in Madrid, represented by L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission incorporated in the letters of 2 April, 6 May and 10 May 2004 by virtue of which it decided to take no further action in respect of the complaints registered under numbers P/2002/4609 and 2003/5119 (as they relate to the applicability of Article 29 EC) on the ground that Real Decreto 725/2003 of 13 June 2003 does not infringe Article 29 EC or Article 10 in conjunction with Article 29 EC;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The present action seeks annulment of the decision contained in the letters from the European Commission of 2 April and 6 and 10 May 2004, in that they reject the complaints put forward by the applicants (P/2002/4609 and 2003/5119) against the adoption of Real Decreto 725/2003 of 13 June 2003 inasmuch as it amends certain aspects of Article 100(2) of Ley 25/1990 on medicinal products.
   The Real Decreto requires wholesalers which distribute pharmaceutical products to notify the health authorities of the quantities of medicinal products supplied to pharmacies and other wholesalers. That information is subsequently provided to pharmaceutical laboratories by that public authority. The applicants consider that pharmaceutical laboratories can thus effectively take measures to block exports to other Community countries carried out by exporting wholesalers, by learning which wholesalers are exporting medicinal products, what pharmaceutical products are being exported and in what quantities.
   The applicants therefore consider that the Real Decreto in question infringes Article 29 of the EC Treaty or Article 10 thereof in conjunction with Article 29.


title: Case C-33/02: Action brought on 6 February 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

text:
6.4.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 84/51
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                   —     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of 16 January 2002
in the appeals concerning Dr Roman Moser, the Bürger-
meister der Landeshauptstadt Salzburg, and the land
            transfer agent of the Land of Salzburg                       Pleas in law and main arguments
                         (Case C-15/02)
                                                                         The Commission claims that Directive 98/59 applies to
                                                                         collective redundancies carried out by any ‘employer’, that is
                         (2002/C 84/89)                                  by any natural or legal person who has created an employment
                                                                         relationship, regardless of whether he is engaged in profit-
                                                                         making activities. It follows, therefore, that the implementing
                                                                         Italian regulations, and in particular Law No 223/91, which
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   restricts the application of the guarantees to employees of
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-                ‘undertakings’ alone, wrongfully exclude all employers engaged
tungssenat Salzburg (Independent Administrative Chamber,                 in non-profit-making activities.
Salzburg) of 16 January 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 22 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the appeals
concerning Dr Roman Moser, the Bürgermeister der Lande-
shauptstadt Salzburg, and the land transfer agent of the Land
of Salzburg on the following question:
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be          Action brought on 6 February 2002 by the Commission
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36           of the European Communities against the Republic of
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land                                             Austria
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGBl.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply                                           (Case C-33/02)
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the                                      (2002/C 84/91)
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?
                                                                         An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
                                                                         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                         on 6 February 2002 by the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
                                                                         Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at
Action brought on 5 February 2002 by the Commission                      Centre Wagner C 254, Kirchberg.
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-32/02)
                                                                         —     declare that the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
                         (2002/C 84/90)                                        obligations under Article 3(3) and (4), Article 7(1) and
                                                                               (2), Article 11(3), and Article 13(1) in conjunction
                                                                               with Article 2(3) of Council Directive 94/67/EC of
                                                                               16 December 1994 on the incineration of hazardous
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                  waste, by
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 February
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            1.    incorrectly transposing, in Paragraph 3 no. 3.2 and
represented by A. Aresu acting as Agent.                                             no. 3.3 of the Verordnung des Bundesministers für
                                                                                wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten über die Verbren-
                                                                                nung gefährlicher Abfälle in gewerblichen Betrieb-
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                          sanlagen (Regulation of the Federal Minister for
                                                                                Economic Affairs on the incineration of hazardous
—     Declare that, by not adopting provisions in respect of                         waste in commercial plants) (the ‘BMwA Regu-
      employers engaged in non-profit-making activities, the                         lation’), the rule in Article 3(3) of the directive that
      Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under                    the heat release from coincineration may not exceed
      Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the                              40 % of the total heat, in respect of ‘the total
      approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                        heat released in the plant at each moment of its
      to collective redundancies (OJ 1998 L 225, p. 16);                             operation’;
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/52                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6.4.2002
      2.    permitting non-binding emission guide values in                 in Annex II, the provisions of Article 7, which contains
            certain cases, under Paragraph 8(3) of the BMwA                 the emission limit values for exhaust gases, have been
            Regulation, contrary to the requirement imposed                 complied with, the Austrian rules provide that for certain
            by Article 3(4) of the directive concerning the                 coincineration plants, the authorities are, in individual
            determination of binding emission limit values;                 cases, to lay down emission guide values for individual
                                                                            pollutants.
      3.    failing to set limit values for heavy metal, dioxin
            and furan emissions in exhaust gases at cement             —    Infringe Article 7(1) and (2) of the directive (failure to lay
            production plants under Paragraph 15(1) of the                  down limit values for heavy metal, dioxin and furan
            BMwA Regulation, contrary to Article 7(1) and (2)               emissions in exhaust gases at cement production plants):
            of the directive;                                               Contrary to Article 7(1) and (2) of the directive, the
                                                                            Republic of Austria has not laid down limit values for
      4.    laying down criteria for compliance with emission               heavy metal, dioxin and furan emissions in exhaust
            limit values in Paragraph 10(5) no. 2 of the BMwA               gases at cement production plants in which waste is
            Regulation which contravene Article 11(3) of the                coincinerated.
            directive; and
                                                                       —    Infringe the first paragraph of Article 11(3) of the
                                                                            directive (compliance criteria for limit values):
      5.    laying down transitional provisions in Para-
            graph 19(1) of the Verordnung des Bundesministers               Contrary to the first indent of Article 11(3) which
            für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie über die Verbren-                specifies the circumstances in which emission limit
            nung von gefährlichen Abfällen (Regulation of the               values are deemed to be complied with, the Austrian
            Federal Minister for Environment, Youth and the                 Government has laid down rules which provide that
            Family on the incineration of hazardous substances)             emission limit values are only exceeded where more than
            and Paragraph 16(2) of the BMwA Regulation which                3 % of the half-hourly averages exceed the emission limit
            exempt existing plants from the application of the              value by more than 20 %. That threshold of 20 % is not,
            directive for the period from 31 December 1996 to               however, contained in the directive.
            1 February 1999, contrary to Article 13(1) in
            conjunction with Article 2(3) of the directive.            —    Infringe Article 13(1) in conjunction with Article 18(1)
                                                                            of the directive (entry into force and transitional pro-
—     order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.                       visions for existing plants):
                                                                            Contrary to the directive, Austria treats plants which were
                                                                            granted permits between 31 December 1996 and the
                                                                            date of transposition of the directive (1 February 1999)
                                                                            as ‘existing plants’. Consequently, under Austrian law,
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            incineration plants which were granted permits between
                                                                            31 December 1996 and 1 February 1999 were covered
The Commission has reached the conclusion that the pro-                     by the transitional period until 30 June 2000, whereas,
visions in force in Austria do not fully comply with the                    according to the directive, such plants should have fallen
provisions of Directive 94/67 EC, namely, in that they:                     fully within the scope of the directive from the time of
                                                                            their authorisation.
—     Infringe Article 3(3) of the directive (for coincineration,
      maximum of 40 % of total heat released in the plant):
      Contrary to Article 3(3), which lays down a total heat
      release from a plant of a maximum of 40 % from the
      incineration of hazardous wastes ‘at each moment of its
      operation’, the provisions in force in Austria permit            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di
      plants to operate with a total heat release of more than         Roma, Terza Sezione Lavoro by order of 24 January 2002
      40 % , and in certain circumstances exclusively, from the        in the case of Sante Pasquini against INPS (Istituto
      incineration of hazardous wastes, over lengthy operating                      Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale)
      periods (e.g, for a number of days or even weeks).
      (Calculation on the basis of quarterly averages)
                                                                                (Case C-34/02)
—     Infringe the second paragraph of Article 3(4) of the
      directive (determination of emission guide values):                                      (2002/C 84/92)
      Contrary to the second indent of Article 3(4) of the
      directive which provides that the permit for a coinciner-
      ation plant is only to be granted if it is demonstrated in       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      the application that, according to calculations laid down        European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Roma,


title: Judgment of the Court of 26 July 2016 in Case E-28/15 — Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals Board (Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence — Derived rights for third country nationals)

text:
               23.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/8

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 26 July 2016
   in Case E-28/15
   Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals Board
   (Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence — Derived rights for third country nationals)
   (2017/C 90/09)
   In Case E-28/15, Yankuba Jabbi v The Norwegian Government, represented by the Immigration Appeals Board – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Oslo District Court (Oslo tingrett) concerning the interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 26 July 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Where an EEA national, pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) and Article 7(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC, has created or strengthened a family life with a third country national during genuine residence in an EEA State other than that of which he is a national, the provisions of that directive will apply by analogy where that EEA national returns with the family member to his home State.


title: Case F-54/06: Action brought on  10 May 2006  — Davis and Others v Council

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/28

         Action brought on 10 May 2006 — Davis and Others v Council
   (Case F-54/06)
   (2006/C 154/64)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: John Davis (Bolton, United Kingdom), Svend Mikkelsen (Sabro, Denmark), Dorrit Pedersen (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Margareta Strandberg (Axminster, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought
   The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the Council decisions determining the applicants' pension entitlements, on the grounds that the portion of their pension entitlement acquired after 30 April 2004 is not multiplied by a correction coefficient, and that the correction coefficient by which the portion of their pension entitlement acquired before 30 April 2004 is multiplied differs from that by which the remuneration of officials in active employment in the United Kingdom or Denmark is multiplied;

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, all former officials of the European Communities resident in the United Kingdom or Denmark, retired after the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations.
   In support of their action, they plead the illegality of Article 82 of the Staff Regulations, Articles 1(3) and 3(5) of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations and of Article 20 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, which entered into force on 1 May 2004.
   They also allege breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination in that, under the abovementioned provisions, officials who retired after 1 May 2004 do not enjoy the guarantee of equivalent purchasing power irrespective of their place of residence. In the same way, they do not enjoy purchasing power equivalent to that of their colleagues with the same income in active employment, their pension being multiplied by a country-related correction coefficient while that of their colleagues in active employment is multiplied by a capital-related correction coefficient.
   The applicants also allege breach of their vested rights and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in that they were entitled to expect their pension entitlements to be calculated in accordance with the rules which were in force when they joined the service and throughout almost all their career.
   Lastly, they allege breach of the principle of freedom of movement and establishment for workers, on the ground that the withdrawal of the correction coefficient applicable to their entire pension means that they are no longer guaranteed freedom of establishment for their centre of interests, if they are not, in some circumstances, to be penalised by a reduction in their purchasing power as against that of their colleagues resident in places with a lower cost of living.


title: Case T-233/11: Action brought on 28 April 2011 — Hellenic Republic v Commission

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/24

         Action brought on 28 April 2011 — Hellenic Republic v Commission
   (Case T-233/11)
   2011/C 204/45
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Αsimakopoulos, G. Κanellopoulos, Α. Ιosifidou and P. Μilonopoulos)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the European Commission of 23 February 2011, Ε(2011) 1006 final, on the State Aid No C 48/2008 (ex ΝΝ 61/2008) implemented by Greece in favour of Εllinikos Xrysos SA.
   The applicant relies on the following grounds for annulment:
   The applicant claims, first, that the defendant infringed the provisions of the Treaties (Articles 107(1) and 108(2) TFEU, formerly Articles 87(1) and 88(2) ΕC) by interpreting and applying them erroneously, due to error as to the combination and assessment of the facts of the case in relation to the definition of State Aid.
   In support of the first part of that ground, in connection with the first measure of State Aid (sale of the Cassandra mines at a price lower than their market value) the applicant claims that there was: (a) an erroneous assessment in relation to the existence of State aid, caused by the manifest error in relation to the role of the Greek State as a mere intermediary and the absence of involvement of State resources in the transfer at issue, (b) (further) an erroneous assessment in relation to the application of the private investor test, (c) (further) an erroneous assessment in relation to the granting of an advantage, caused by the manifestly erroneous estimate of the value of the mines, the land and the stock of concentrates, as well as of the supposedly real, at the time of the sale, operation of the mines, (d) (further) an erroneous assessment in relation to the distortion of competition and the effect on trade between Member States.
   In support of the second part of that ground, in connection with the second measure of State Aid (waiver of taxes on the transfer) the applicant claims that there was an erroneous assessment of the alleged advantage, as well as of the alleged distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States.
   In support of the second ground for annulment, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the provisions of Article 14(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (1) in relation to the demand for recovery of the aid, contrary to the principles of proportionality, sincere cooperation, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.
   In support of that ground the applicant claims that in the light of those principles the defendant erred in the exercise of balancing the threatened distortion of competition and the benefit from the continued activity of the mines at issue.
   Lastly, in support of the third ground for annulment, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the rules relating to stating reasons (Article 296 TFEU, formerly Article 253 ΕC) in connection with the existence of State Aid, and in relation to its compatibility with the internal market.
   In support of that ground, the applicant claims that the defendant did not explain why the price for the sale of the Cassandra mines deriving entirely from private resources constitutes the direct or indirect loss of State resources which can be attributed to the Greek State, nor why it regarded as payable in the present case both taxes on the transfer of the mines and on the transfer of land, and not only the tax on the mines. Moreover, in relation to the value of the mines, the land and the stock of minerals, the defendant did not explain the granting of an advantage, relying selectively partly on the Behre Dolbear report and partly on its own arbitrary arguments which it also applied inconsistently in connection with the negative value of the idle mines.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.