title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 November 2004 in Case C-372/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Roberto Adanez-Vega v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Determination of the applicable legislation — Unemployment benefits — Conditions governing aggregation of periods of insurance or employment — National measure not taking into account a period of compulsory military service completed in another Member State)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 11 November 2004
   in Case C-372/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Roberto Adanez-Vega v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Determination of the applicable legislation - Unemployment benefits - Conditions governing aggregation of periods of insurance or employment - National measure not taking into account a period of compulsory military service completed in another Member State)
   (2005/C 19/03)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-372/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundessozialgericht (Germany), made by decision of 15 August 2002, received at the Court on 16 October 2002, in the proceedings between Roberto Adanez-Vega and Bundesanstalt für Arbeit – the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas and S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 November 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91 of 25 June 1991, must be interpreted as meaning that a person residing in a Member State and unemployed there after performing his compulsory military service in another Member State is subject to the legislation of the Member State of residence.
               Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that it is a special provision concerning the determination of the legislation applicable in regard to unemployment benefits with the result that if the conditions determining its application are met the applicable legislation is that provided for in that provision.
               It is for the referring court to determine whether in the main proceedings the conditions governing application of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) are met.
               If in the main proceedings the conditions governing the application of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, are satisfied, the legislation applicable to a person residing in a Member State and unemployed there after performing his compulsory military service in another Member State would, under that provision, also be the legislation of the Member State of residence.

               2.

               A period of compulsory military service in another Member State constitutes a ‘[period of employment] completed as an employed person under the legislation of [that] other Member State’ for the purposes of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 2195/91, where, first, it is so defined or recognised by the legislation of that other Member State or treated as such and regarded by that legislation as a period equivalent to a period of employment and where, second, the person concerned was insured within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 during his military service.
               The condition that ‘the person concerned should have completed lastly … periods of insurance … in accordance with the provisions of the legislation under which the benefits are claimed’ for the purposes of Article 67(3) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, precludes the obligation to aggregate periods of employment only where a period of insurance was completed in another Member State after the last period of insurance completed under the legislation under which the benefits are claimed.

               3.

               In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71, in the version updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 2195/91, does not preclude a competent institution, when examining entitlement to unemployment benefit, from not taking into account, in calculating periods of insurance completed, a period of compulsory military service performed in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.


title: Case C-132/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato, Sezione Quarta by decision and order of that Court of 28 January 2003 in the case of Ministry of Health against Codacons and Federconsumatori, and concerning Lega delle Cooperative

text:
C 135/12                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         7.6.2003
       Spanish authorities to the Commission, it is clear that               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
       various municipalities in the Baix Ter area have exceeded             Ordinario di Torino — Sezione del giudice per le indagini
       on several occasions the maximum nitrate parameters                   preliminari by order of that Court of 25 February 2003 in
       laid down in Directive 80/778/EEC, in some cases                      the criminal proceedings against Alessandro Nizza and
       reaching extremely elevated concentrations.                                                    Giacomo Pizzi
( 1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975
                                                                                (Case C-133/03)
     L 194, p. 39).
( 2) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
     Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).
( 3) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment                                  (2003/C 135/17)
     of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
     environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40).
( 4) Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/
     EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
     projects on the environment (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5).
( 5) Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain           European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
     dangerous substances (OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43).
                                                                             Torino — Sezione del giudice per le indagini preliminari
( 6) Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the
     quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1980                (Turin District Court, Chamber of the Investigating Judge) of
     L 229, p. 11).                                                          25 February 2003, received at the Court Registry on 25 March
                                                                             2003, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
                                                                             against Alessandro Nizza and Giacomo Pizzi on the following
                                                                             questions:
                                                                             1.   May Article 6 of Directive 68/151/EEC (1) be interpreted
                                                                                as imposing an obligation upon the Member States to
                                                                                establish appropriate penalties not only for failure on the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di                            part of commercial companies to publish their balance
Stato, Sezione Quarta by decision and order of that Court                         sheet and profit and loss statement but also for publishing
of 28 January 2003 in the case of Ministry of Health                              inaccurate versions of those statements or of other
against Codacons and Federconsumatori, and concerning                             company information addressed to shareholders or the
                      Lega delle Cooperative                                      public or of any other information concerning their
                                                                                economic, asset or financial position which they are
                                                                                required to provide and which concern the company
                           (Case C-132/03)
                                                                                itself or the group of companies to which it belongs?
                           (2003/C 135/16)
                                                                             2.   With reference to the obligation upon each Member State
                                                                                to adopt ‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements
                                                                                provided for in the First Directive 68/151/EEC and the
                                                                                Fourth Directive 78/660/EEC ( 2), must those directives
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            and, in particular, the combined provisions of
European Communities by decision and order of the Consiglio                       Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing the European
di Stato, Sezione Quarta (Council of State, Fourth Chamber) of                    Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of the First
28 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on 25 March                       Directive and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of the Fourth
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministry of Health                  Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC ( 3) and
against Codacons and Federconsumatori, and concerning Lega                        Directive 90/605/EEC ( 4), be interpreted as precluding the
delle Cooperative on the following question:                                      legislation of a Member State under which no penalty
                                                                                may be imposed for breach of the duty to publish true
Must Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 ( 1), as                       and fair company documents and which lays down a
amended by Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 49/2000 ( 2), apply                    system of penalties which are not responsive to the
also to baby foods for infants and for young children of up to                    criteria of effectiveness, proportionality and deterrent
three years of age, and, more specifically, in relation to such                   effect?
products, must the adventitious contamination by material
derived from genetically modified organisms in a proportion
                                                                             3.   Must the directives mentioned, and in particular the
of no more than 1 % be indicated on the labelling?                                provisions of Article 44(2)(g) of the Treaty Establishing
                                                                                the European Community, Article 2(1)(f) and Article 6 of
                                                                                the First Directive and Article 2 (2), (3) and (4) of the
( 1) OJ L 159 of 03.06.1998, p. 4.
                                                                                Fourth Directive, as amended by Directive 83/349/EEC
( 2) OJ L 6 of 11.01.2000, p. 13.
                                                                                and Directive 90/605/EEC, be interpreted as precluding
                                                                                the legislation of a Member State under which, in the case
                                                                                of breach of the duty to publish true and fair company


title: Case T-168/13: Action brought on 18 March 2013 — EPAW v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/36

         Action brought on 18 March 2013 — EPAW v Commission
   (Case T-168/13)
   2013/C 207/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW) (Kingscourt, Republic of Ireland) (represented by: C. Kiss, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Renewable Energy: a major player in the European energy market’ COM(2012) 271;

               —

               Annul the answer of the European Commission to the Request for Internal Review of EPAW No AG/ss ener.c.l(2012)1664829 by way of DG Energy dated 21 January 2013

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Commission Communication COM(2012)271 is unlawful.

                           —

                           Commission Communication COM(2012)271 failed to provide for public participation on the Renewable Energy Strategy in compliance with the Aarhus Convention.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Commission Communication COM(2012)271 is unlawful.

                           —

                           Commission Communication(2012)271 failed to comply with the Aarhus Regulation (EU Regulation 1367/2006).

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the letter of the Commission No AG/ss ener.c.l(2012)1664829 is unlawful.

                           —

                           The letter of the Commission unlawfully states that an administrative act in order to be reviewable via a request for Internal Review pursuant to the EU Regulation 1367/2006 has to be an act of individual scope and to be an act adopted by an EU institution having legally binding effects.


title: Case F-127/15: Action brought on 29 September 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               14.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 414/43

         Action brought on 29 September 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-127/15)
   (2015/C 414/54)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C.W. Godfrey, C. Antoine and M. Gomes Lopes, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the Commission’s decision imposing the disciplinary measure of withholding EUR 185 from the applicant’s pension for a 12-month period and taking effect on the date on which he is to retire, on account of the exercise of an outside activity without permission.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the European Commission decision dated 16 December 2014, with all ensuing legal consequences;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-563/13: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Belgium v Commission (EAGF — Expenditure excluded from financing — Expenditure incurred by Belgium — Fruit and vegetables — Obligation to state reasons — Conditions for recognition of a producer organisation — Outsourcing of core activities by a producer organisation — Amount to be excluded — Proportionality)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-563/13) (1)

   ((EAGF - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by Belgium - Fruit and vegetables - Obligation to state reasons - Conditions for recognition of a producer organisation - Outsourcing of core activities by a producer organisation - Amount to be excluded - Proportionality))
   (2016/C 038/61)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, assisted by F. Tuytschaever and M. Varga, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Kranenborg and P. Rossi, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/433/EU of 13 August 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ L 219, p. 49), in so far as it concerns certain expenditure incurred by the Kingdom of Belgium or, in any event, limitation of the amount which must be excluded from financing.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013.


title: Case T-233/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — Paul Hartmann v Commission (Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/54

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Paul Hartmann v Commission
   (Case T-233/13) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/91
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Paul Hartmann SA (Châtenois, France) (represented by: J. M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J. F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Paul Hartmann SA is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case F-72/13: Action brought on 15 July 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIF

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/32

         Action brought on 15 July 2013 — ZZ and Others v EIF
   (Case F-72/13)
   2013/C 274/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Fund (EIF)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions contained in salary slips to apply to the applicants the decision of the Board of Directors setting a salary progression capped at 2.3%, the decision of the EIF’s Chief Executive setting a new merit grid entailing the loss of 1 to 2 % of salary, according to the applicants, and the decision of the EIB’s Management Committee establishing a merit grid entailing the loss of 1 to 2 % of salary, according to the applicants, and the subsequent application for an order that the EIF pay the difference in remuneration together with damages.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decisions to apply to the applicants the decision of the EIF’s Board of Directors of 4 February 2013 setting a salary progression capped at 2.3%, the decision of the EIF’s Chief Executive setting a new merit grid entailing the loss of 1 to 2 % of salary, according to the applicants, which decisions derive from the decision of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 18 December 2012 setting a salary progression capped at 2.3% and from a decision of the EIB’s Management Committee of 29 January 2013 establishing a merit grid entailing the loss of 1 to 2 % of salary, according to the applicants (the abovementioned decisions of the EIF having been disclosed in the April 2013 salary slips), and the annulment, to the same extent, of all the decisions of the EIF contained in the subsequent salary slips;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the difference between the remuneration resulting from the aforementioned decisions of the EIF’s Board of Directors and the EIF’s Chief Executive of 4 February 2013, the EIB’s Board of Directors of 18 December 2012 and the EIB’s Management Committee of 29 January 2013 and that payable in application of the ‘4-3-2-1-0’ merit grid and the ‘5-4-3-1-0’‘young’ grid, or, in the alternative, in respect of the applicants awarded a grade A, that payable in application of the ‘3-2-1-0-0’ merit grid and, in respect of the applicants covered by the ‘young’ grid, under the ‘4-3-2-0-0’ young grid; with interest on arrears to be added to that difference in remuneration with effect from 15 April 2013 and then on the 15th of each month until the difference has been completely made up, the rate of interest being the ECB rate, increased by three percentage points;

               —

               order the defendant to pay damages for the loss suffered by reason of the loss of purchasing power, such loss being assessed equitably, and, on a provisional basis, at 1.5% of the monthly remuneration of each applicant;

               —

               should the defendant not produce them voluntarily, request the defendant, by way of measures of organisation of procedure, to produce the following documents:

                           —

                           the decision of the EIF’s Board of Directors relating to the alignment of the employment status of EIF staff of 24 September 2001;

                           —

                           the decision of the EIF setting out the ‘appropriate procedure’ mentioned in the decision of the EIF’s Board of Directors relating to the alignment of the employment status of EIF staff of 24 September 2001;

                           —

                           the decision of the EIF’s Board of Directors, thought to be of 4 February 2013, setting the budget for staff for 2013;

                           —

                           the decision of the EIF’s Chief Executive setting the new merit grid for 2013;

                           —

                           the minutes of the meeting of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 18 December 2012;

                           —

                           the minutes of the meeting of the EIB’s Management Committee of 29 January 2013;

                           —

                           the note from the EIB’s Personnel Directorate ‘personnel/ASP/2013-5’ of 29 January 2013;

                           —

                           the Corporate Operational Plans 2013-2015 of the EIB and of the EIF;

               —

               order the EIF to pay the costs.


title: Case C-612/13 P: Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-111/11: ClientEarth v Commission

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/5

      Appeal brought on 26 November 2013 by ClientEarth against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-111/11: ClientEarth v Commission
      (Case C-612/13 P)
      (2014/C 71/08)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Appellant: ClientEarth (represented by: P. Kirch, avocat)

         Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

         Form of order sought

      The appellant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  set aside the General Court judgment of 13 September 2013 in case T-111/11;

                  —

                  order the Commission to pay all costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of the appeal, the Appellant relies on three grounds of appeal:

                  1.

                  First ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law, through the application of an erroneous interpretation of the terms ‘investigation’ and ‘undermine the protection of (…) the purpose of (…) investigations’ as set out in the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001 (1).
                  The General Court erred in law when it stated, categorically, that ‘the studies at issue are part of an investigation conducted by the Commission, within the meaning of the third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No. 1049/2001’.
                  As a first branch of this ground of appeal, the General Court misinterpreted the term ‘investigation’.
                  Second branch: even considering that an investigation took place, the General Court erred in law by misinterpreting the term ‘undermine’. The General Court linked the concept of disclosure with the concept of undermining, without providing a concrete demonstration of how exactly disclosure would have undermined the ‘purpose’ of investigations.

                  2.

                  Second ground of appeal, alleging that the General Court erred in law through a violation of Articles 4(1), 4(2) and 4(4) of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental matters, done at Aarhus, Denmark, on 25 June 1998 and approved by Council Decision 2005/370/EC of 17 February 2005 (2).
                  This ground of appeal consists of five arguments. First, the General Court erred in a restrictive way in its application of the obligation to interpret Article 4(4)(c) of the Aarhus Convention. Secondly, the General Court erred in its application of the measure in question in light of the Aarhus Convention. Third, the General Court erred in its obligation to interpret the Aarhus Convention in accordance with customary international law. Fourth, the General Court erred in its refusal of direct applicability of Articles 4 and 4(4)(c) of the Aarhus Convention. Finally, the General court erred in its application of the law in its acceptance of a derogation from the application of the Aarhus Convention based on the ‘specific features’ of the European Union.

                  3.

                  Third ground of appeal in law, alleging the violation by the General Court of Articles 6(1) of Regulation No. 1367/2006 (3) and 4(2) in fine and 4(3) of Regulation No. 1049/2001.
                  The General Court erred in law by grounding its refusal to acknowledge the existence of overriding public interests in disclosure only on the analysis of the arguments put forward by the applicant. This approach is contrary to the provisions of Regulation No. 1049/2001 as well as to relevant case law. In fact, the arguments put forward by an applicant in this respect cannot per se be the reason why the existence of overriding public interests is denied, because the law does not set the burden of proof of overriding circumstances on the applicant. The balance of the interests at stake in disclosure must be carried out by the institution concerned.

         (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
      OJ L 145, p. 43

         (2)  2005/370/EC: Council Decision of 17 February 2005 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.
      OJ L 124, p. 1

         (3)  Regulation (EC) No. 1367/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies.
      OJ L 264, p. 13


title: Case C-118/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 25 February 2016 — X Denmark A/S v Skatteministeriet

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 25 February 2016 — X Denmark A/S v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-118/16)
   (2016/C 270/31)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X Denmark A/S

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a company resident in a Member State that is covered by Article 3 of the Directive and, in circumstances such as those of the present case, receives interest from a subsidiary in another Member State, is the ‘beneficial owner’ of that interest for the purposes of the Directive?

                           1.1.

                           Is the concept ‘beneficial owner’ in Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted in accordance with the corresponding concept in Article 11 of the OECD 1977 Model Tax Convention?

                           1.2.

                           If question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative, should the concept then be interpreted solely in the light of the commentary on Article 11 of the 1977 Model Tax Convention (paragraph 8), or can subsequent commentaries be incorporated into the interpretation, including the additions made in 2003 regarding ‘conduit companies’ (paragraph 8.1, now paragraph 10.1), and the additions made in 2014 regarding ‘contractual or legal obligations’ (paragraph 10.2)?

                           1.3.

                           If the 2003 Commentaries can be incorporated into the interpretation, is it then a condition for deeming a company not to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of Directive 2003/49/EC that there actually has been a channelling of funds to those persons who are deemed by the State in which the interest payer is resident to be ‘the beneficial owners’ of the interest in question, and — if so — is it then a further condition that the actual passing take place at a point close in time to the payment of the interest and/or take place as a payment of interest?

                                       1.3.1.

                                       Of what significance is it in that connection if equity capital is used for the loan, if the interest in question is entered on the principal (‘rolled up’), if the interest recipient has subsequently made an intra-group transfer to its parent company resident in the same State with a view to adjusting earnings for tax purposes under the prevailing rules in the State in question, if the interest in question is subsequently converted into equity in the borrowing company, if the interest recipient has had a contractual or legal obligation to pass the interest to another person, and if most of the persons deemed by the State where the person paying the interest is resident to be the ‘beneficial owners’ of the interest are resident in other Member States or other States with which Denmark has entered into a double taxation convention, so that under the Danish taxation legislation there would not have been a basis for retaining tax at source had those persons been lenders and thereby received the interest directly?

                           1.4.

                           What significance does it have for the assessment of the issue whether the interest recipient must be deemed to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of the Directive if the referring court, following an assessment of the facts of the case, concludes that the recipient — without having been contractually or legally bound to pass the interest received to another person — did not have the ‘full’ right to ‘use and enjoy’ the interest as referred to in the 2014 Commentaries on the 1977 Model Tax Convention?

               2.

               Does a Member State’s reliance on Article 5(1) of the Directive on the application of national provisions for the prevention of fraud or abuse, or Article 5(2) of the Directive, presuppose that the Member State in question has adopted a specific domestic provision implementing Article 5 of the Directive, or that national law contains general provisions or principles on fraud, abuse and tax evasion that can be interpreted in accordance with Article 5?

                           2.1.

                           If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, can Paragraph 2(2)(d) of the Law on corporation tax, which provides that the limited tax liability on interest income does not include ‘interest which is tax-exempt … under Directive 2003/49/EC on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States’, then be deemed to be a specific domestic provision as referred to in Article 5 of the Directive?

               3.

               Is a provision in a double taxation convention entered into between two Member States and drafted in accordance with OECD’s Model Tax Convention, under which taxation of interest is contingent on whether the interest recipient is deemed to be the beneficial owner of the interest, a conventional anti-abuse provision covered by Article 5 of the Directive?

               4.

               Is it abuse, etc. under Directive 2003/49/EC if, in the Member State where the interest payer is resident, tax deductions are allowed for interest, whilst interest in the Member State where the interest recipient is resident is not taxed?

               5.

               Is a company resident in Luxembourg, established and registered under Luxembourg company law as a ‘société en commandite par actions’ (S.C.A.) and also classified as a ‘société d’investissement en capital à risque’ (SICAR) under the Luxembourg law of 15 June 2004 relating to the investment company in risk capital (SICAR), covered by Directive 2003/49/EC?

                           5.1

                           If question 5 is answered in the affirmative, can a Luxembourg ‘S.C.A./SICAR’ then be ‘beneficial owner’ of interest under Directive 2003/49/EC, even though the Member State in which the interest-paying company is resident deems the company in question to be a tax-transparent entity under its domestic law?

                           5.2

                           If question 1 is answered in the negative, so that the interest-receiving company is deemed not to be the ‘beneficial owner’ of the interest in question, can the S.C.A./SICAR then, in circumstances such as those of the present case, be deemed to be the ‘beneficial owner’ of the interest at issue herein for the purposes of the Directive?

               6.

               Is a Member State that does not wish to recognise that a company in another Member State is the beneficial owner of interest and claims that the company in the other Member State is a so-called artificial conduit company bound under Directive 2003/49/EC or Article 10 EC to state whom the Member State in that case deems to be the beneficial owner?

               7.

               If a company resident in a Member State (parent company) is in fact deemed not to be exempt from tax at source under Directive 2003/49/EC concerning interest received from a company resident in another Member State (subsidiary), and the parent company of the latter Member State is deemed to have limited tax liability on that interest in that Member State, does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, then preclude legislation under which the latter Member State requires the company liable for retaining the tax at source (subsidiary) to pay overdue interest in the event of overdue payment of the tax at source claim at a higher rate of interest than the overdue interest rate that the Member State charges on corporation tax claims (including interest income) lodged against a company resident in the same Member State?

               8.

               If a company resident in a Member State (parent company) is in fact deemed not to be exempt from tax at source under Directive 2003/49/EC concerning interest received from a company resident in another Member State (subsidiary), and the parent company of the latter Member State is deemed to be a taxable person with limited tax liability on that interest in that Member State, does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 (in the alternative Article 56 EC), viewed separately or as a whole, preclude legislation under which:

                           (a)

                           the latter Member State requires the person paying the interest to retain tax at source on the interest and makes that person liable to the authorities for the non-retained tax at source, where there is no such duty to retain tax at source when the interest recipient is resident in the latter Member State?

                           (b)

                           a parent company in the latter Member State would not have been required to make advance payments of corporation tax in the first two fiscal years, but would only have begun to pay corporation tax at a much later time than the due date for tax at source?

                     The EU Court of Justice is requested to include the answer to question 7 in its answer to question 8.

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States.

      OJ L 157, 26.6.2003, p. 49


title: Action brought on 6 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-398/98)

text:
C 397/26                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19.12.98
      5. In the light of Community law, may such a system             Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
          be applied in a fair way to products from the
          domestic market and to imported products?
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
(b) Does depreciation of the real value of used vehicles,
      referred to in the judgment of the European Court of
      Justice in Case C-345/95 (1) Nunes Tadeu necessarily            The pleas in law and principal arguments advanced are
      imply that a valuation or expert assessment must be             analogous to those in Case C-394/98.
      carried out on every vehicle or may the calculation be
      made in general and abstract terms by reference to a            (1) OJ L 136, 21.6.1995, p. 28.
      legal criterion?
(c) If      the     European       Commission       discontinues
      infringement proceedings against a Member State on
      the understanding that the new national legislation is
      now in conformity with Community law, may a
      national supreme court, relying on the interpretation           Action brought on 6 November 1998 by the Commission
      of Community law and of national law adopted by                 of the European Communities against the Hellenic
      the Commission, be relieved of the obligation imposed                                       Republic
      on it by Article 177 of the EC Treaty to request a
                                                                                (Case C-398/98)
      preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the
      European Communities and decide the case in                                             (98/C 397/46)
      accordance with the interpretation adopted by the
      European Commission?
                                                                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
(1) [1995] ECR I-479.
                                                                      before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                      on 6 November 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities, represented by Dimitris Triantafillou, of its
                                                                      Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a civil servant
                                                                      on secondment to the same service, with an address for
                                                                      service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de
                                                                      la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Action brought on 5 November 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                              Belgium
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should declare
                          (Case C-395/98)                             that, by laying down and retaining a system for stocks of
                                                                      petroleum products which directly links the possibility of
                           (98/C 397/45)
                                                                      transferring to the refineries operating in the country the
                                                                      obligation to stock supplies with an obligation to obtain
                                                                      supplies of petroleum products from those refineries, and
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                  by precluding service stations from obtaining supplies
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities               from refineries or from another Member State, the
on 5 November 1998 by the Commission of the European                  Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Communities, represented by R. B. Wainwright, Principal               Article 30 of the EC Treaty.
Legal Adviser, and O. Couvert-CasteÂra, a national civil
servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.
                                                                      In the Commission's view, the Greek system for
The Commission of the European Communities claims                     maintaining emergency stocks is contrary to Article 30 of
that the Court should:                                                the EC Treaty to the extent that the effect of the
                                                                      obligations imposed on the petroleum product companies
                                                                      is to confer an advantage on the products of Greek
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt or, in any event, by              refineries because the distribution companies are in reality
     failing to communicate to the Commission the laws,               obliged to obtain supplies exclusively from those
     regulations and administrative measures necessary in             refineries. The negative effects of that situation on the free
     order to comply with Commission Directive 95/13/EC               movement of petroleum products within the Community
     of 23 May 1995 implementing Council Directive 92/                are, additionally, intensified by the way in which the
     75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household              distribution of petroleum products is organised in Greece,
     electric tumble driers (1), the Kingdom of Belgium has           whereby service-station operators are required to obtain
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;           supplies exclusively from the distribution companies.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 397/27
The Commission considers that that system, resulting                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
from the legislation in force, is capable of hindering,
directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-
Community trade in petroleum products.                              Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                    directives are binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                    upon each Member State to which they are addressed.
                                                                    Under the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty,
It contends, furthermore, that the Hellenic Republic
                                                                    Member States are to take all appropriate measures,
cannot rely on Article 36 of the EC Treaty as a
                                                                    whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the
justification. A Member State may invoke Article 36 in
                                                                    obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from
order to justify a measure having equivalent effect to a
                                                                    action taken by thge institutions of the Community. The
quantitative restriction on imports only if no other
                                                                    abovementioned provisions require the Member States to
measure, less restrictive from the point of the view of the
                                                                    make their legislation consistent with Community
free movement of goods, is capable of achieving the same
                                                                    directives within the periods which those directives lay
objective. The objective of maintaining security of supply,
                                                                    down. A Member State may not invoke provisions,
which the Greek authorities state is the objective pursued
                                                                    practices or circumstances existing in its legal order in
by them, can be achieved by measures which are less
                                                                    order to justify a failure to comply with obligations and
restrictive of the free movement of goods.
                                                                    time-limits laid down by Community directives. It is not
                                                                    disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                    measures to comply with Directive 94/47/EC. The time-
The Commission thus considers that the contested Greek              limit laid down by Article 12 of that directive expired on
legislation constitutes a measure which has equivalent              29 April 1997 without the Hellenic Republic having
effect to a quantitative restriction, contrary to Article 30        adopted the laws, regulations and administrative
of the Treaty, and cannot be justified on any of the                provisions necessary to comply with the directive or
grounds set out in Article 36 of the Treaty, and in                 having notified them to the Commission.
particular not on the basis of security of supply.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994, p. 83.
Action brought on 10 November 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic                          Removal from the register of Case C-199/97 (1)
                           Republic                                                         (98/C 397/48)
                        (Case C-401/98)
                         (98/C 397/47)                              By order of 7 October 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-199/97 (reference for
                                                                    a preliminary ruling from the Royal Court of Jersey):
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                    Emidio Marco Rios v. His Excellency the Lieutenant
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    Governor of Jersey.
on 10 November 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service          (1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-80/98 (1)
Ð declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and                                   (98/C 397/49)
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     Directive 94/47/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
                                                                    By order of 7 October 1998 the President of the Court of
     the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
                                                                    Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
     purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts
                                                                    removal from the register of Case C-80/98 (reference for a
     relating to the pourchase of the right to use
                                                                    preliminary ruling from the Sù- og Handelsret): 3Com
     immovable properties on a timeshare basis, or by not
                                                                    Corporation v. Bluecom Danmark A/S and KISS Nordic
     notifying them to the Commission, the Hellenic
                                                                    A/S.
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations udner that
     directive;
                                                                    (1) OJ C 166, 30.5.1998.
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-151/15: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/61

         Order of the General Court of 15 March 2017 — EFB v Commission
   (Case T-151/15) (1)

   (2017/C 144/89)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


C 397/28             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  19.12.98
       Removal from the register of Case C-34/97 (1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-188/98 (1)
                        (98/C 397/50)                                                        (98/C 397/52)
By order of 13 October 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                 By order of 20 October 1998 the President of the Court of
removal from the register of Case C-34/97 (reference for a          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin):                  removal from the register of Case C-188/98: Commission
1. RWE Energie Aktiengesellschaft 2. Stadt Nordhorn v.              of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of
Bundeskartellamt.                                                   Luxembourg.
(1) OJ C 94, 22.3.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
      Removal from the register of Case C-187/97 (1)
                        (98/C 397/51)
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-47/98 (1)
By order of 13 October 1998 the President of the Court of                                    (98/C 397/53)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-187/97 (reference
for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof):               By order of 23 October 1998 the President of the Court of
WINGAS GmbH (formerly Wintershall Gas GmbH) v.                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Stadt Detmold.                                                      removal from the register of Case C-47/98: Commission of
                                                                    the European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 212, 12.7.1997.
                                                                    (1) OJ C 113, 11.4.1998.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           tendering procedure for a feasibility study for the
                                                                    modernisation of a railway junction in Warsaw on the E-
                     of 29 October 1998
                                                                    20 line, and of the restricted invitation to tender of
in Case T-13/96: TEAM Srl v. Commission of the                      4 December 1995 for a feasibility study for the
                  European Communities (1)                          modernisation of the Warsaw railway node on the E-20
                                                                    TEN line Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber),
(PHARE programme Ð Decision to annul an invitation to               composed of: P. Lindh, President, K. Lenaerts and J. D.
tender and issue a new invitation to tender Ð Action for            Cooke, Judges; M. Johansson, Legal Secretary, for the
damages Ð Admissibility Ð Damage resulting from the                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 October 1998, in
loss suffered by a tenderer, from its loss of profit and from       which it:
                the harm caused to its image)
                        (98/C 397/54)
                                                                    1. Dismisses the action;
               (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                    2. Orders the applicant to pay all the costs relating to the
                                                                        claim for damages;
In Case T-13/96: TEAM Srl, a company incorporated
under Italian law, represented by Antonio Tizzano, Gian
Michele Roberti and Francesco Sciaudone, of the Naples              3. Orders the parties to bear their own costs relating to
Bar, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels, against                        the application for annulment.
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Marie-JoseÂ Jonczy and Lucio Gussetti) Ð application, at
the stage ultimately reached in the proceedings, for                (1) OJ C 108, 13.4.1996.
compensation in respect of the damage suffered by the
applicant as a result of the Commission decision,
contained in a letter of 16 November 1995, annulling the


title: Case T-195/13: Action brought on 3 April 2013 — dm-drogerie markt/OHIM — V-Contact (CAMEA)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/31

         Action brought on 3 April 2013 — dm-drogerie markt/ OHIM — V-Contact (CAMEA)
   (Case T-195/13)
   2013/C 171/58
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: B. Beinert and O. Bludovsky, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: V-Contact Kft (Szada, Hungary)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2013 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 452/2012-1) and, by way of correction, delete the applicant’s trademark;

               —

               Alternatively annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2013 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 452/2012-1) and, remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation;

               —

               Alternatively annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2013 (Appeal relating to Opposition Proceedings No R 452/2012-1).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CAMEA’ for, inter alia, goods in classes 3, 5 and 16 — Community trade mark application No 9 279 928

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: International registration designating, inter alia, the European Union and covering goods in classes 3, 5 and 8

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-159/99: Action brought on 7 July 1999 by Bjarne Christiansen against the Court of Auditors

text:
2.10.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          — declare that the applicant has been suffering from total
                                                                             permanent invalidity, making it impossible for him to
                                                                             carry out the duties corresponding to a post in his career
The applicant entered the service of the General Secretariat of              bracket, from 23 September 1998, the date of his request
the Council as a grade C 5 official on 1 November 1995.                      that he be treated as suffering from invalidity, or such
During the 1998 promotions procedure, the list of officials                  other date as the Court may determine;
eligible for promotion and the number of posts to be filled by
way of promotion were published by Staff Notice No 140/98                — order that an expert medical opinion be sought in order to
on 5 November 1998. Amongst the 124 officials eligible for                   determine whether the applicant is suffering from total
promotion from grade C 5, the applicant was in 43rd place in                 invalidity;
order of seniority, out of all the grade C 5 officials having
the requisite seniority under the Staff Regulations. Upon                — make such ruling as to costs as may be appropriate.
completion of the work of the advisory committee on category
C promotions, a list of officials proposed for promotion to
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
grade C 4, containing 38 names was sent to the appointing
authority, which decided to act on it. The applicant’s name did
not appear on that list.                                                 By note dated 23 September 1998 the applicant submitted a
                                                                         request for the grant to him of an invalidity pension. In
                                                                         consequence of that request, the administration of the Court
In support of her application, the applicant pleads:                     of Auditors referred the matter to the Invalidity Committee,
                                                                         which concluded that the applicant was not suffering from
— infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and                any complaint which could be regarded as total permanent
     failure to provide statement of reasons;                            invalidity making it impossible for his to perform his duties.
                                                                         The appointing authority of the Court of Auditors, noting that
— infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                   decision, rejected his request that he be retired on grounds of
— failure properly to carry out the promotions procedure;                invalidity.
— failure to observe the principle of equal treatment; and               In support of his application, the applicant maintains:
— manifest error of assessment.                                          — that his current state of health shows that the sick leave
                                                                             proposed by the Invalidity Committee has not brought
                                                                             about an improvement in his health;
                                                                         — that the various medical certificates obtained from several
                                                                             specialists show that the treatment received at the Mondorf
                                                                             health spa has had no palpable result, that no significant
                                                                             improvement is to be expected in the applicant’s physical
                                                                             condition and moreover, that, from an osteoarticular and
                                                                             spinal standpoint, the applicant needs beyond all doubt to
Action brought on 7 July 1999 by Bjarne Christiansen                         be retired from his duties on grounds of invalidity;
                 against the Court of Auditors
                                                                         — that the decision of the Invalidity Committee should be
                                                                             reviewed, having regard to a new medical certificate dated
                         (Case T-159/99)                                     10 May 1999 concluding that the treatment has not
                                                                             improved the applicant’s muscular condition.
                         (1999/C 281/37)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Court of Auditors was brought before               Action brought on 8 July 1999 by Gunnar Svantesson
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 and Others against the Council of the European Union
7 July 1999 by Bjarne Christiansen, residing at Nittel (Ger-
many), represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar,                                       (Case T-160/99)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers,
51 Rue Albert 1er.                                                                               (1999/C 281/38)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 (Language of the case: French)
— find that new factors have arisen since the Invalidity
     Committee adopted its decision on 30 October 1998;                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
— declare that the action brought by the applicant against               Communities on 8 July 1999 by Gunnar Svantesson, Monica
     the decision of the European Court of Auditors of 7 April           Hägg and Lena Hellsten, residing in Brussels, represented by
     1999, by which it rejected the complaint lodged against             Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar (Belgium), with an address
     the decision adopted by the appointing authority of the             for service at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL 30 Rue de
     Court of Auditors on 26 November 1998, is well founded;             Cessange.


               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/2

         Assumption of duties by a new Judge of the Court of Justice
   (2008/C 51/02)
   Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 5 December 2007 (1), Mr Jean-Jacques Kasel took the oath before the Court on 14 January 2008.

      (1)  OJ L 325 of 11 December 2007, p. 89.


title: Assignment of Judges to the Chambers

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/40

         Assignment of Judges to the Chambers
   (2007/C 269/70)
   On 19 and 25 September 2007, the Court of First Instance decided to establish eight Chambers of five Judges and eight Chambers of three Judges for the period from 25 September 2007 to 31 August 2010, and to assign the Judges to them as follows:
   First Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Ms Tiili, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Ms Jürimäe and Mr Soldevila Fragoso, Judges.
   First Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Ms Tiili, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Dehousse, Judge;
   Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judge.
   Second Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber, Mr Dehousse, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Ms Jürimäe and Mr Soldevila Fragoso, Judges.
   Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Ms Pelikánová, President of the Chamber;
   Ms Jürimäe, Judge;
   Mr Soldevila Fragoso, Judge.
   Third Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber, Mr Cooke, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka and Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Judges.
   Third Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Azizi, President of the Chamber;
   Ms Cremona, Judge;
   Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Judge.
   Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber, Mr Cooke, Ms Cremona, Ms Labucka and Mr Frimodt Nielsen, Judges.
   Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Czúcz, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Cooke, Judge;
   Ms Labucka, Judge.
   Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Vilaras, President of the Chamber, Mr Vadapalas, Mr Prek, Mr Tchipev and Mr Ciucă, Judges.
   Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Vilaras, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Prek, Judge;
   Mr Ciucă, Judge.
   Sixth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Meij, President of the Chamber, Mr Vadapalas, Mr Prek, Mr Tchipev and Mr Ciucă, Judges.
   Sixth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Meij, President of the Chamber;
   Mr Vadapalas, Judge;
   Mr Tchipev, Judge.
   Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber, Mr Šváby, Mr Papasavvas, Mr Moavero Milanesi, Mr Wahl, Mr Dittrich and Mr Truchot, Judges.
   Seventh Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Mr Forwood, President of the Chamber;

               (a)

               Mr Šváby and Mr Moavero Milanesi, Judges.

               (b)

               Mr Šváby and Mr Truchot, Judges.

               (c)

               Mr Moavero Milanesi and Mr Truchot, Judges.

         Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
   Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber, Mr Šváby, Mr Papasavvas, Mr Moavero Milanesi, Mr Wahl, Mr Dittrich and Mr Truchot, Judges.
   Eighth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
   Ms Martins Ribeiro, President of the Chamber;

               (a)

               Mr Papasavvas and Mr Wahl, Judges.

               (b)

               Mr Papasavvas and Mr Dittrich, Judges.

               (c)

               Mr Wahl and Mr Dittrich, Judges.

         In the Seventh and Eighth Chambers, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges, the Judges who will sit with the President of the Chamber to make up the formation of five Judges will be the three Judges of the Chamber initially hearing the case, the fourth Judge of that Chamber and a Judge of the other Chamber composed of four Judges. The latter, who will not be the President of the Chamber, will be designated in turn for one year, in the order provided for by Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
   In the Seventh and Eighth Chambers sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber will sit with the Judges referred to at (a), (b) or (c) above in turn, depending on which of those formations the Judge-Rapporteur belongs to. For cases in which the President of the Chamber is the Judge-Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber will sit with the Judges of each of those formations alternately in accordance with the order in which the cases are registered, subject to the presence of connected cases.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 23 October 2003 in Case T-65/98: Van den Bergh Foods Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Competition — Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — Ice creams intended for immediate consumption — Supply of freezer cabinets to retailers — Exclusivity clause — Barriers to entry to the market — Property rights — Article 222 of the EC Treaty (now Article 295 EC))

text:
10.1.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 7/29
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        of 23 October 2003                                                     of 30 September 2003
in Case T-65/98: Van den Bergh Foods Ltd v Commission                      in Joined Cases T-191/98 and T-212/98 to T-214/98:
               of the European Communities (1)                             Atlantic Container Line AB and Others v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
(Action for annulment — Competition — Articles 85 and
86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — Ice                   (Competition — Liner conferences — Regulation (EEC)
creams intended for immediate consumption — Supply of                      No 4056/86 — Block exemption — Individual exemption —
freezer cabinets to retailers — Exclusivity clause — Barriers              Collective dominant position — Abuse — Service contracts
to entry to the market — Property rights — Article 222 of                  — Accession to the conference — Alteration of the compe-
              the EC Treaty (now Article 295 EC))                          tition structure — Withdrawal of block exemption — Fines
                                                                                — Rights of the defence)
                           (2004/C 7/51)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/52)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                           (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-65/98, Van den Bergh Foods Ltd, formerly HB Ice                  In Joined Cases T-191/98 and T-212/98 to T-214/98: Atlantic
Cream Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), represented by                 Container Line AB, established in Gothenburg (Sweden), Cho
M. Nicholson and M. Rowe, solicitors, with an address for                  Yang Shipping Co. Ltd, established in Seoul (South Korea),
service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the European                        DSR-Senator Lines GmbH, established in Bremen (Germany),
Communities (Agents: W. Wils and A. Whelan), supported                     Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd, established in Seoul (South Korea),
by Masterfoods Ltd, established in Dublin represented by                   Hapag-Lloyd AG, established in Hamburg (Germany), Hyundai
P.G.H. Collins, solicitor, and by Richmond Frozen Confection-              Merchant Marine Co. Ltd, established in Seoul (South Korea),
ery Ltd, formerly Treats Frozen Confectionery Ltd, established             A.P. Møller-Mærsk Line, established in Copenhagen (Denmark),
in Northallerton (United Kingdom), represented by I.S. Forre-              Mediterranean Shipping Co. SA, established in Geneva (Switz-
ster, QC, with an address for service in Luxembourg: Appli-                erland), Orient Overseas Container Line (UK) Ltd, established
cation for annulment of Commission Decision 98/531/EC of                   in London (United Kingdom), Polish Ocean Lines (POL),
11 March 1998 relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and               established in Gdynia (Poland), P & O Nedlloyd BV, established
86 of the EC Treaty (Case Nos IV/34.073, IV/34.395 and IV/                 in London (United Kingdom), Sea-Land Service Inc., established
35.436 — Van den Bergh Foods Limited) (OJ 1989 L 246,                      in Jersey City, New Jersey (United States of America), Neptune
p. 1), the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed               Orient Lines Ltd, established in Singapore (Singapore), Nippon
of: R. García-Valdecasas, President, P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke,              Yusen Kaisha, established in Tokyo (Japan), Transportación
Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a         Marítima Mexicana SA de CV, established in Mexico City
judgment on 23 October 2003, in which it:                                  (Mexico), Tecomar SA de CV, established in Mexico City
                                                                           (Mexico), represented by J. Pheasant, N. Bromfield, M. Levitt,
                                                                           D. Waelbroeck, U. Zinsmeister, A. Bentley, C. Thomas,
1.    Dismisses the application as unfounded.                              A. Nourry, M. Van Kerckhove, P. Ruttley and A. Merckx,
                                                                           lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Com-
2.    Orders Van den Bergh Foods Ltd to bear its own costs and to          mission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and
      pay those of the Commission, including the costs of the interim      J. Flynn), supported by European Council of Transport Users
      proceedings.                                                         ASBL, represented by M. Clough QC, with an address for
                                                                           service in Luxembourg: Application for the annulment of
3.    Orders Masterfoods Ltd and Richmond Frozen Confectionery             Commission Decision 1999/243/EC of 16 September 1998
      Ltd to bear their own costs.                                         relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the
                                                                           EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.134 — Trans-Atlantic Conference
                                                                           Agreement) (OJ 1999 L 95, p. 1), the Court of First Instance
(1) OJ C 234 of 25.07.1998.                                                (Fourth Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, J. Azizi
                                                                           and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 September 2003, in
                                                                           which it:


title: Case C-541/10 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 September 2011 — Sociedade Quinta do Portal, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto SA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 8(1)(b) — Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE — Earlier national word mark VISTA ALEGRE — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Declaration of invalidity of the mark)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/23

      Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 September 2011 — Sociedade Quinta do Portal, SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto SA
      (Case C-541/10 P) (1)

      (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 8(1)(b) - Community word mark PORTO ALEGRE - Earlier national word mark VISTA ALEGRE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Declaration of invalidity of the mark)
      (2012/C 25/39)
      Language of the case: Portuguese

         Parties

         Appellant: Sociedade Quinta do Portal, SA (represented by: F. Bolota Belchior, advogado)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla, abogados), Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto SA

         Re:

      Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 September 2010 in Case T-369/09 Quinta do Portal v OHIM — Vallegre, by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 June 2009 (Case R 1012/2008-1) relating to proceedings for a declaration of invalidity between Vallegre, Vinhos do Porto SA and Sociedade Quinta do Portal, SA

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The appeal is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Quinta do Portal, SA is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 38, 5.2.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of 10 November 2014 in Case E-2/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/35/EC — Failure to implement)

text:
               13.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/13

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 10 November 2014
   in Case E-2/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/35/EC — Failure to implement)
   (2015/C 158/07)
   In Case E-2/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland – APPLICATION for a declaration that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt and/or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of all measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56v of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, that is Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 65/2009 of 29 May 2009, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and Article 7 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 10 November 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that by failing, within the time prescribed, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56v of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto and by EEA Joint Committee Decision No 65/2009 of 29 May 2009, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-86/02: Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
1.6.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 131/3
Is a provision of national law, in casu Paragraph 60(1) and (2)          Action brought on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of
of the Markenschutzgesetz (Austrian Law on the Protection of             the European Communities against the Federal Republic
Trademarks), in conjunction with Paragraph 10a thereof,                                            of Germany
which may be interpreted as meaning that the mere transit of
goods manufactured/distributed in contravention of provisions
of the law on trademarks is not punishable under criminal law,                                    (Case C-86/02)
contrary to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/
94 (1) of 22 December 1994 laying down measures to prohibit                                      (2002/C 131/07)
the release for free circulation, export, re-export or entry for a
suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods, as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 (2) of
25 January 1999?
                                                                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
                                                                         nities on 13 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
(1) OJ L 341, p. 8.                                                      Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its
(2) OJ L 27, p. 1.                                                       Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                         the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, C 254,
                                                                         Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) declare that, by adopting Paragraph 1(6) and Para-
                                                                               graph 1.44 of the SprengÄndG 1997 of 23 June 1998,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
                                                                               the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
by judgment of that Court of 28 February 2002 in the
                                                                               obligations, imposed on it by the first paragraph of
case of Agence Maritime Lalemant against 1. Malzfabrik
                                                                               Article 10 and the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
Tivoli GmbH, 2. Malteurop G.I.E, 3. Belgische Interventie-
                                                                               EC Treaty, to comply with Directive 93/15/EEC (1) and
en Restitutiebureau and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH against
                                                                               has failed to comply with its obligations arising from the
          Belgische Interventie- en Restitutiebureau
                                                                               first paragraph of Article 226 of the EC Treaty;
                          (Case C-82/02)                                 (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                         (2002/C 131/06)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie                 The Commission objects to the provision whereby explosives,
(Belgian Court of Cassation) of 28 February 2002, received at            apart from those intended for export to, or introduction into,
the Court Registry on 12 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling            another Member State, may only be used or relinquished to
in the case of Agence Maritime Lalemant against 1. Malzfabrik            others if they bear an identification mark issued by the
Tivoli GmbH, 2. Malteurop G.I.E, 3. Belgische Interventie- en            Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (BAM)
Restitutiebureau and Malzfabrik Tivoli GmbH against Belgische            (Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing). The fact
Interventie- en Restitutiebureau on the following question:              that, as a result of provisional measures taken by the BAM,
                                                                         that obstacle to trade no longer exists is not enough to cure
                                                                         the infringement of Community law.
Must Article 9(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2730/
79 (1) of 29 November 1979 laying down common detailed
rules for the application of the system of export refunds on             The transitional provision contained in Paragraph 1.44 of the
agricultural products be interpreted as meaning that goods               German statute could lead to serious distortions of the internal
exported to non-member countries and in respect of which                 market, since explosives which may be freely placed on the
customs export formalities have been completed are to be                 market within the Community pursuant to the provisions of
regarded as having left the geographical territory of the                the directive are not permitted on the German market, whereas
Community when they actually leave the territory of the                  explosives which should no longer feature on the market after
Community or when they are placed in a customs warehouse?                the expiry of the transitional period might be allowed in
                                                                         Germany.
(1) OJ L 317, 1979, p. 1.                                                (1) OJ L 121 of 15.5.1993, p. 20.


title: Case T-64/99: Action brought on 3 March 1999 by RJB Mining plc against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.6.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 160/27
    extra payments to miners as operating aid under article 3            — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action,
    (2) of the Code, although these payments are not a                        including those of the applicant.
    component of the production costs of the mining under-
    takings.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— The contested decision contains no facts which would
    enable the applicant to verify the viability of any undertak-
    ing or production unit. Furthermore, the contested decision          The application concerns the alleged failure of the Commission
    contains no facts or statements that would enable the                to act in accordance with its obligations under article 4(c)
    applicant to establish whether the reduction in production           ECSC and Commission Decision 3632/93 (‘the Code’) (1) in
    costs was likely to lead to a degression of aid in the light         relation to a state aid inherent in, and conditional on, the
    of falling world coal prices, as required by article 2 of the        merger between Ruhrkohle AG (RAG), Saarbergwerke AG and
    Code.                                                                Preussag Anthrazit GmbH (‘the merger’).
                                                                         The applicant points out that, since March 1998, it has drawn
(1) RJB Mining v. Commission (OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 38).               the Commission’s attention to its serious concern that the
(2) RJB Mining v. Commission, not yet published in the OJ.               merger should not be approved without, inter alia, careful
(3) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12.                                         examination of certain elements of State aid, which were
                                                                         understood to include:
                                                                         — the symbolic DEM 1 paid for Saarbergwerke,
                                                                         — the agreement by the German Government to make up
                                                                              50 % of the shortfall of an annual DEM 200 million
                                                                              cross-subsidy from RAG’s non-coal activities,
Action brought on 3 March 1999 by RJB Mining plc                         — the waiver by the German Government of aid repayment
  against the Commission of the European Communities                          in the amount of DEM 4 billion, and
                                                                         — an additional subsidy of DEM 1,65 billion if RAG acquired
                         (Case T-64/99)                                       the German Government’s share in Saarbergwerke.
                        (1999/C 160/50)                                  By decision dated 29 July 1998, the Commission approved the
                                                                         merger. However, on 2 December 1998, the Commission
                                                                         adopted a decision, with regard to the German coal industry
                   (Language of the case: English)                       for 1998, which did not contain any reference to the merger,
                                                                         let alone the State aid issues relating to the merger, and even
                                                                         treated the three merged entities as separate undertakings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 3 March 1999 by RJB Mining plc,                  The applicant submits that the Commission is under a duty:
represented by Mr Mark Brealey and Mr Jonathan Lawrence,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             — to examine the grant of State aid to the merged companies,
Arendt & Medernach, 8-10, rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                         — to examine the complaint made on March 1998 that the
                                                                              aid inherent in, and conditional on, the merger was
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                              unlawful, and
— annul the implied decision by which the Commission has                 — to record the failure by Germany to comply with article
    refused to examine whether Germany has complied with                      4(c) ECSC and the Code.
    article 4(c) ECSC and the Code in respect of state aid
    inherent in, and conditional on, the merger,
                                                                         The first two of those duties are imposed by virtue of article 8
— annul the implied decision by which the Commission                     ECSC and the Code and the third by article 88 ECSC. Further
    has refused to examine the applicant’s complaint dated               or alternatively, if the Commission is under no such duties and
    16 March 1998 that the aid inherent in, and conditional              is merely empowered to examine the grant of State aid, the
    on, the merger is incompatible with article 4(c) ECSC and            continued refusal to act constitutes a misuse of those powers.
    the Code,
                                                                         (1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1993, p. 12.
— annul the implied decision by which the Commission has
    refused to record the failure of Germany to comply with
    article 4(c) ECSC and the Code in respect of state aid
    inherent in, and conditional on, the merger, and