title: Case C-185/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket v X, Y and Z

text:
17.7.1999                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 204/31
2. In the alternative, must Articles 6 and 8a of the Treaty and        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
     Directive 96/93 of 29 October 1993 on the right of                by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket
     residence for students (2) be interpreted as permitting                                            vX
     exclusion of a student whose right of residence has
     been acknowledged from entitlement to benefits under a                                     (Case C-186/99)
     non-contributory social security benefit system such as the
     minimum means of subsistence, payable by the host                                          (1999/C 204/61)
     country and, if so, is that exclusion general and definitive
     in nature?                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities, by order of 16 April 1999, by the
                                                                       Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), which was
                                                                       received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a
(1) Regulation of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of
                                                                       preliminary ruling in the case of Riksskatteverket v X on the
    movement for workers within the Community, OJ, English Special     following question:
    Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.                                         Under Article 7(8) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, a
 2
( ) OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59.                                              Swedish public limited company is exempt from tax on
                                                                       dividends which it receives on shares in another Swedish
                                                                       public limited company if the shares do not constitute
                                                                       current assets and the total number of votes attached to the
                                                                       undertaking’s shares in the distributing undertaking at the end
                                                                       of the tax year is equal to, or more than, 25% of the
                                                                       number of votes attached to all the shares of the distributing
                                                                       undertaking. An undertaking of a Member State is also exempt
                                                                       from kupongsskatt in respect of dividends received from a
                                                                       Swedish public limited company if the undertaking owns 25 %
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten              or more of the share capital of the distributing company and
by order of 16 April 1999 in the case of Riksskatteverket              is a company within the meaning of the parent-subsidiary
                             v X, Y and Z                              directive. Is it compatible with applicable Community law, in
                                                                       particular with Article 52 in conjunction with Articles 6 and
                                                                       58 and Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty to apply a
                           (Case C-185/99)                             system under which a corresponding tax exemption does not
                                                                       apply to dividends accruing to a company which is domiciled
                                                                       in another Member State and which has a permanent establish-
                           (1999/C 204/60)                             ment in Sweden to which the dividends are attributable?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities, by order of 16 April 1999, by the
Regeringsrätten (Supreme Administrative Court), which was
received at the Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
                                                                       Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment
preliminary ruling in the case of Riksskatteverket v X, Y and Z
                                                                       of that court of 28 April 1999, in the case of Fazenda
on the following question:
                                                                            Pública and Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa, Lda
                                                                                (Case C-187/99)
Under Article 7(8) of Law 1947:576 on State Income Tax, a
Swedish public limited company is exempt from tax on                                            (1999/C 204/62)
dividends which it receives on shares in another Swedish
public limited company if the shares do not constitute                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
current assets and the total number of votes attached to the           European Communities by a judgment of the Second Chamber
undertaking’s shares in the distributing undertaking at the end        of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Adminis-
of the tax year is equal to, or more than, 25 % of the                 trative Court) of 28 April 1999, which was received at the
number of votes attached to all the shares of the distributing         Court Registry on 20 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
undertaking. An undertaking of a Member State is also exempt           the case of Fazenda Pública v Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa,
from kupongsskatt in respect of dividends received from a              Lda., on the following questions:
Swedish public limited company if the undertaking owns 25 %            1. Is Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 (1)
or more of the share capital of the distributing company and                of 16 July 1985 concerned with the conditions (obli-
is a company within the meaning of the parent-subsidiary                    gations, rules) laid clown in the document granting the
directive. Is it compatible with applicable Community law, in               beneficiary of the arrangements authorisation for the use
particular with Article 52 in conjunction with Articles 6 and               (functioning) thereof?
58 and Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty to apply a
system under which a corresponding tax exemption does not              2. Or, on the contrary, is it concerned with the conditions,
apply to dividends accruing to a company which is domiciled                 requirements or bases for the issue of the inward processing
in another Member State and which has a permanent establish-                authorisation?
ment in Sweden to which the dividends are attributable?                3. Once the rate of yield has been fixed by the customs
                                                                            authority, may the latter unilaterally alter that rate on the
                                                                            ground that the holder of the authorisation, when making
                                                                            use of the arrangements, has in fact obtained a higher rate
                                                                            of yield than that initially envisaged and approved?


title: Case T-532/10: Action brought on 13 November 2010 — Cosepuri v EFSA

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/43

         Action brought on 13 November 2010 — Cosepuri v EFSA
   (Case T-532/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/79
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Cosepuri Soc. coop. p.a. (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: F. Fiorenza, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the refusal dated 15 September 2010 denying Cosepuri access to the documents;

               —

               Order EFSA to produce the classified documents;

               —

               Order EFSA to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present proceedings, also the applicant in Case T-339/10 Cosepuri v EFSA, (1) challenges the decision of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) of 15 September 2010 relating to tendering procedure CFT/EFSA/FIN/2010/01 (contract notice 2010/S 51-074689) for the award of a shuttle service contract in Italy and Europe, in which the contract was awarded to another company.
   By the contested decision, EFSA refused access to certain documents in the tendering procedure and in particular to documents concerning the requirements for admission and the selection of the most economically advantageous tender.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement of the relevant provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 (2) and of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, (3) as well as breach of the duty to state reasons, the principle of transparency and the right of access to documents. Lastly, the applicant alleges misuse of powers.
   The applicant complains, in particular, that the defendant failed to state the actual damage that the successful tenderer would suffer if access were granted to the documents requested, and that adequate reasons were not given for the partial refusal of the request, since, in the context of the tendering procedure, the information in question was comparative, included in the documents made available by the tenderers for that procedure, and accordingly outside the scope of confidential business information. In addition, the applicant requests that the present proceedings be joined with Case T-339/10 currently pending before the General Court.

      (1)  OJ 2010 C 288, p. 47.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1).

      (3)  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 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-420/05 R II: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2006 — Vischim v Commission (Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation — Directive 91/414/EEC — Fresh application — Urgency — None)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/17

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2006 — Vischim v Commission
   (Case T-420/05 R II)
   (Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation - Directive 91/414/EEC - Fresh application - Urgency - None)
   (2006/C 310/34)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Vischim Srl (Cesano Maderno, Italy), (represented by C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant Commission of the European Communities (represented by B. Doherty and L. Parpala, lawyers)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the deadline of 31 August 2006 set by Article 3 of Commission Directive 2005/53/EC of 16 September 2005 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include chlorothalonil, chlorotoluron, cypermethrin, daminozide and thiophanate-methyl as active substances (OJ 2005 L 241, p.51)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-138/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 30 March 2000 in the case of (1) Solida Raiffeisen Immobilien Leasing GmbH and (2) Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts- und Technologiepark GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland

text:
24.6.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 176/11
2. Does the function of the target price for milk set by the               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
     Council under Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 preclude a                   richtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 30 March
     Member State from:                                                    2000 in the case of (1) Solida Raiffeisen Immobilien
                                                                           Leasing GmbH and (2) Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts-
                                                                           und Technologiepark GmbH against Finanzlandesdirek-
     (a) making use of the target price as an indicator of                      tion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland
          the actual price movements due to the common
          agricultural policy; and
                                                                                (Case C-138/00)
     (b) treating the fact that a milk producers’ co-operative in
          that State has achieved for its members milk prices                                        (2000/C 176/19)
          that are below the target price, but are nearer to the
          target price in one period of time than another, as
          supporting a conclusion that the co-operative exercises          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
          market power which contributes to prices being higher            European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
          than they would have reached under more competitive              hof (Higher Administrative Court, Vienna) of 30 March 2000,
          conditions.                                                      received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2000, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of (1) Solida Raiffeisen Immobi-
3. Are Articles 28 to 30, EC (ex Articles 30, 34 and 36) and               lien Leasing GmbH and (2) Tech Gate Vienna Wissenschafts-
     Articles 49 and 55 (ex Articles 59 and 66) to be interpreted          und Technologiepark GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für
     as precluding a Member State from applying national laws              Wien, Niederdösterreich und Burgenland (Tax Board for
     such as the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition                 Vienna, Lower Austria and Burgenland) on the following
     Act 1998 in such a way as to prohibit a milk producers’               question:
     co-operative which has been found to enjoy market power
     from sending milk produced by its members to be
                                                                           ‘Do payments which a non-member of a capital company
     processed by contractors on its behalf, including in other
                                                                           makes to the company for the acquisition of dividend rights
     Member States, as a step being taken by the co-operative
                                                                           constitute “assets of any kind contributed or to be contributed
     for the purpose of exploiting its position in the market in
                                                                           by the members” within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of
     its favour?
                                                                           Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July concerning indirect
                                                                           taxes on the raising of capital (1)?’
4. Where large vertically-integrated dairy co-operatives exist
     and are permitted to operate in other Member States,
     is the general principle of non-discrimination, whether               (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.
     independently or as given specific effect in Articles 12
     and/or 34 EC (ex Articles 6 and 40), to be interpreted as
     precluding a Member State from applying national laws
     such as the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition
     Act 1998 to prohibit a milk producers’ co-operative which
     has been found to enjoy market power from:
     (a) acquiring or building further plant for the processing
          of milk produced by its members, which would give
          the co-operative the ability to exploit still further its        Action brought on 12 April 2000 by the Commission of
          position in the market in its favour; or                         the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
     (b) sending milk produced by its members to be processed
          by contractors on its behalf, whether within the                                           (Case C-140/00)
          Member State concerned or in other Member States, as
          a step being taken by the co-operative for the purpose
          of exploiting its position in the market in its favour?                                    (2000/C 176/20)
                                                                           An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
(1) EEC Council: Regulation No 26 applying certain rules of compe-         Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice
    tition to production of and trade in agricultural products (OJ 30,     of the European Communities on 12 April 2000 by the
    20.04.62, p. 993 [SE SER1 (59-62) p. 129]).                            Commission of the European Communities, represented by
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on
    the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products
                                                                           Thomas van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Keir Fitch, an official
    (OJ L 148, 28.6.68, p. 13 [SE SER1 68(I) p. 176]).                     seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the arrange-
                                                                           ment for the exchange of national officials, acting as Agents,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                           Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the
                                                                           Commission, Centre Wagner.


title: Case C-427/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy)) — Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Genova 1 v Porto Antico di Genova SpA (Structural Funds — Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Second subparagraph of Article 21(3) — Prohibition of deduction — Calculation of taxable income — Taking account of Community grants received)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 October 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova (Italy)) — Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Genova 1 v Porto Antico di Genova SpA
   (Case C-427/05) (1)

   (Structural Funds - Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 - Second subparagraph of Article 21(3) - Prohibition of deduction - Calculation of taxable income - Taking account of Community grants received)
   (2007/C 315/14)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Genova 1

      Defendant: Porto Antico di Genova SpA
   Re:
   Request for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria regionale di Genova — Interpretation of Article 21(3) of Council Regulation No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ 1993 L 193, p. 20) — Compatibility of a national provision which takes into account Community funds received in the assessment of taxable income
   Operative part of the judgment
   The second subparagraph of Article 21(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a national tax provision such as Article 55(3)(b) of Decree No 917 of the President of the Republic of 22 December 1986, which includes grants paid by the Community Structural Funds in the assessment of taxable income.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Joined Cases C-475/13 and C-476/13: Order of the President of the Court of 21 May 2014 (requests for preliminary rulings from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Walter Jubin (C-475/13), Heidemarie Retzlaff (C-476/13) v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 May 2014 (requests for preliminary rulings from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Walter Jubin (C-475/13), Heidemarie Retzlaff (C-476/13) v easyJet Airline Co. Ltd
   (Joined Cases C-475/13 and C-476/13) (1)

   2014/C 261/34
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.


title: Case C-323/03: Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
4.10.2003                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 239/1
                                                                        I
                                                                 (Information)
                                                    COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of                    Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Commission of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order                     the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
of that court dated 6 June 2003, in the case of Dyson Ltd
                 against Registrar of Trade Marks
                                                                                (Case C-323/03)
                           (Case C-321/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 239/02)
                           (2003/C 239/01)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                      An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 6 June                 the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 July
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 24 July                  2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dyson Ltd and                represented by I. Martínez del Peral and K. Simonsson, acting
Registrar of Trade Marks on the following questions:                       as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
1.     In a situation where an applicant has used a sign (which
       is not a shape) which consists of a feature which has a
       function and which forms part of the appearance of a                The applicant claims that the Court should:
       new kind of article, and the applicant has, until the date
       of application, had a de facto monopoly in such articles,
       is it sufficient, in order for the sign to have acquired a          1.   declare that, by maintaining in force rules which:
       distinctive character within the meaning of Article 3(3)
       of Directive 89/104/EC (1), that a significant proportion
       of the relevant public has by the date of application for                —    allow maritime transport services in the Vigo estuary
       registration come to associate the relevant goods bearing                     to be entrusted to a single operator for a period of
       the sign with the applicant and no other manufacturer?                        20 years and which include as a criterion for the
                                                                                award of the right to operate the services experience
                                                                                in transport in the Vigo estuary, which favours the
2.     If that is not sufficient, what else is needed in order for                   existing operator;
       the sign to have acquired a distinctive character and, in
       particular, is it necessary for the person who has used the
       sign to have promoted it as a trade mark?
                                                                                —    allow seasonal transport services with the islands or
                                                                                regular transport services between continental ports
                                                                                to be subject to public-service obligations;
( 1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
     approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade
     marks, OJ L040, 11.02.1989, p. 1-7.
                                                                                —    permit the introduction of a more restrictive system
                                                                                than that in force on the date on which the
                                                                                Regulation entered into force (January 1993), that is
                                                                                to say, the Decision of 11 June 1984;
 ---pagebreak--- C 239/2                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          4.10.2003
       —    were never the subject of consultation with the                 The appellant claims that the Court should:
            Commission before being approved,
       the Kingdom of Spain has infringed Articles 1, 4, 7 and 9
       of Regulation No 3577/92 (1) and has failed to fulfil its            1.    quash the order of the Court of First Instance (Second
       obligations under that regulation and the EC Treaty.                       Chamber) delivered on 28 April 2003 in Case T-15/03,
                                                                                the applicant having shown all the requisite care and
                                                                                attention for the transmission of documents to the Court
2.     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                               of First Instance;
                                                                            2.    consequently, to refer the case back to the Court of First
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   Instance for a declaration that the action for annulment
                                                                                in Case T-15/03 is admissible, and for proceedings to
                                                                                continue before the Court of First Instance on the basis
The Vigo estuary is within the territorial scope of Regulation                    of the claims submitted in the application against the
No 3577/92. That regulation was not designed to regulate                          decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of
competence in a specific market. The fact that sea traffic                        24 October 2002 in Case R 918/2001-2, concerning
between the ports of the Vigo estuary is local does not preclude                  opposition proceedings between José Luis Zuazaga Meabe
the application of the principle of freedom to provide services.                  and Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992
     applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
     transport with Member States (maritime cabotage), OJ L 364,
     12.12.1992, p. 7.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                            —     Infringement of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court of
                                                                                Justice: the applicant pleads the existence of unfavourable,
                                                                                unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances which were
Appeal brought on 25 July 2003 by José Luis Zuazaga                               beyond his control, which prove the existence of unfore-
Meabe against the order delivered on 28 April 2003 by                             seeable circumstances or force majeure. The confirmation
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                           by registered letter lodged with the Spanish postal services
(Second Chamber) in Case T-15/03 between José Luis                                on 7 January 2003 of the application, transmitted to the
Zuazaga Meabe and the Office for Harmonisation in                                 Court of First Instance by fax on 3 January 2003, was
the Internal Market (OHIM), the other party to the                                ineffective for reasons beyond the applicant’s control.
proceedings before the Board of Appeal being Banco de                             The principle of proportionality therefore requires the
                 Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.                                   Court of First Instance to adopt a flexible approach.
                         (Case C-325/03 P)
                                                                            —     Infringement of Articles 102 of the Rules of Procedure of
                                                                                the Court of First Instance and Article 81(2) of the Rules
                           (2003/C 239/03)                                        of Procedure of the Court of Justice: the applicant submits
                                                                                that, to the ordinary time-limit extended by ten days on
                                                                                account of distance may be allowed an additional ten
                                                                                days for a definite confirmation of the document trans-
                                                                                mitted by fax.
An appeal against the order delivered on 28 April 2003 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-15/03 between José Luis Zuazaga
Meabe and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market               —     Infringement of Article 103 of the Rules of Procedure of
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                           the Court of First Instance and Article 82 of the Rules of
Communities on 25 July by José Luis Zuazaga Meabe, rep-                           Procedure of the Court of Justice: the applicant claims
resented by José Antonio Calderón Chavero and Natalia Moya                        that the principle of proportionality can and should be
Fernández, with an address for service in Luxembourg, the                         applied to set the deadline in a flexible manner in cases
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal                         such as this, where the applicant sent the document in
being Banco de Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria S.A.                                     advance by fax.


title: Case C-287/13 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 May 2014  — Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA and Others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) — Article 59 and Annex XIII — Identification of pitch, coal tar, high temperature as a substance of very high concern, to be made subject to the authorisation procedure — Equal treatment)

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/6

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 May 2014 — Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA and Others v European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
   (Case C-287/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) - Article 59 and Annex XIII - Identification of pitch, coal tar, high temperature as a substance of very high concern, to be made subject to the authorisation procedure - Equal treatment))
   2014/C 261/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Bilbaína de Alquitranes, SA, Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza, a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón, SA, Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd, Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV, Rütgers Poland Sp. z o.o. (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (represented by: M. Heikkilä, W. Broere and T. Zbihlej, Agents, and by J. Stuyck and A.-M. Vandromme, advocaten)

      Operative part of the order

   The Court (Eighth Chamber) hereby:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Bilbaína de Alquitranes SA, Cindu Chemicals BV, Deza a.s., Industrial Química del Nalón SA, Koppers Denmark A/S, Koppers UK Ltd, Rütgers Germany GmbH, Rütgers Belgium NV and Rütgers Poland sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-1/11 SA: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2012 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission (Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Union)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/10

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 19 November 2012 — Luigi Marcuccio v European Commission
   (Case C-1/11 SA) (1)

   (Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the European Union)
   2013/C 38/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Protocol on privileges and immunities — Application for leave to serve a garnishee order on the Commission in respect of sums owing to the European Union by the Italian Republic and, in the alternative, in respect of movable property belonging to the European Union held in the Italian Republic — Waiver of the Commission’s immunity — Article 1 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for a garnishee order is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Luigi Marcuccio and the European Commission are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 24.3.2012.


title: Case C-1/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 2 January 2009 — Centre d'Exportation du Livre Français (CELF), Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v Société Internationale de Diffusion et d'Édition

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (France) lodged on 2 January 2009 — Centre d'Exportation du Livre Français (CELF), Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v Société Internationale de Diffusion et d'Édition
   (Case C-1/09)
   (2009/C 69/42)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Centre d'Exportation du Livre Français (CELF), Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication

      Respondent: Société Internationale de Diffusion et d'Édition
   Questions referred

               1.

               May the national court stay proceedings concerning the obligation to recover State aid until the Commission of the European Communities has ruled, by way of a final decision, on the compatibility of the aid with the rules of the common market, where a first decision of the Commission declaring that aid to be compatible has been annulled by the Community judicature?

               2.

               Where the Commission has on three occasions declared the aid to be compatible with the common market, before those decisions were annulled by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, is such a situation capable of being an exceptional circumstance which may lead the national court to limit the obligation to recover the aid?


title: Case C-523/09: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Rakvere Piim AS, Maag Piimatööstus AS v Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet (Common agricultural policy — Fees for health inspections and controls in respect of milk production)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — Rakvere Piim AS, Maag Piimatööstus AS v Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet
   (Case C-523/09) (1)

   (Common agricultural policy - Fees for health inspections and controls in respect of milk production)
   2011/C 269/11
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu Ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Rakvere Piim AS, Maag Piimatööstus AS

      Defendant: Veterinaar- ja Toiduamet

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Interpretation of Articles 26 and 27 of and Annexes IV and VI to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (OJ 2004 L 165, p. 1) — Calculation of fees charged for official controls in respect of milk production — Charging of fees equivalent to the minimum rates applicable under the regulation but higher than the actual costs borne by the competent authorities for official controls

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 27(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules must be interpreted as enabling a Member State to levy fees at the minimum rates laid down in Annex IV, section B to that regulation without having to adopt a measure of application at national level, even though the costs borne by the competent authorities in connection with the health inspections and controls laid down in that regulation are lower than those rates, when the specified conditions for applying Article 27(6) of that regulation are not satisfied.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: Case C-634/13 P: Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing, against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-566/08 Total Raffinage Marketing v Commission

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/22

         Appeal brought on 4 December 2013 by Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing, against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 September 2013 in Case T-566/08 Total Raffinage Marketing v Commission
   (Case C-634/13 P)
   2014/C 45/38
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Total Marketing Services, successor in law to Total Raffinage Marketing (represented by: A. Vandencasteele, C. Lemaire, S. Naudin, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court incorrectly excluded the cessation of Total Marketing Services’ (‘TMS’) participation in the infringement after 12 May 2004;

               —

               set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court incorrectly excluded any unjustified unequal treatment between TMS and Repsol concerning the duration of their participation in the infringement;

               —

               set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court incorrectly excluded the interruption of TMS’ participation in the infringement between 26 May 2000 and 27 June 2001;

               —

               set aside the judgment appealed against on the ground that the General Court did not respond to the plea alleging failure to examine evidence of TMS’ competitive behavior on the market;

               —

               rule definitively, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and, on that basis, annul the decision in so far as it concerns TMS and, in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction, reduce the fine imposed on TMS;

               —

               should the Court not rule on the present case, reserve costs and refer the case back to the General Court for re-examination, in accordance with the Court’s ruling;

               —

               lastly, order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice, pursuant to Article [184] of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant invokes four grounds.
   In its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed Article 101 TFEU, the rules on the adducing of evidence, the principles of the presumption of innocence and legal certainty and the obligation to state reasons by holding that the appellant participated in the infringement between 12 May 2004 and 28 April 2005 on the ground that it failed to show that it publicly distanced itself from the agreement during that period.
   By its second ground of appeal, divided into two parts, the appellant considers that the General Court infringed, first, the principle of equal treatment and its obligation to state reasons and, secondly, that it distorted the documentary evidence relating to the invitations received by TMS and Repsol, in so far as the General Court excluded any exit by TMS from the agreement after the meeting of 11 to 12 May 2004, but approved the exit of Repsol after the meeting of 3 to 4 August 2004.
   By its third ground of appeal, divided into two parts, the appellant claims that the General Court infringed Article 101 TFEU, the rules on the adducing of evidence, the principles of the presumption of innocence and legal certainty and the obligation to state reasons by holding that TMS did not interrupt its participation in the infringement between 26 May 2000 and 26 June 2001 on the ground that it had failed to show that it publicly distanced itself from the agreement during that period.
   Finally, by its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the General Court infringed the principles of effective judicial protection, that penalties must be specific to the infringing party, and the obligation to state reasons in so far as the General Court rejected without examination the plea alleging failure to take account of evidence of TMS’ competitive behaviour.


title: Case T-366/11 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2015 — Bial-Portela v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ZEBEXIR — Earlier Community word mark ZEBINIX — Relative grounds for refusal — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               20.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 127/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 March 2015 — Bial-Portela v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR)
   (Case T-366/11 RENV) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZEBEXIR - Earlier Community word mark ZEBINIX - Relative grounds for refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 127/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bial-Portela & Ca, SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. Pimenta, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: P. López Ronda, G. Macias Bonilla and G. Marín Raigal, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Bial-Portela & Ca, SA and Isdin, SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 April 2011 (Case R 1212/2009-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those of Bial-Portela & Ca, SA;

               3.

               Orders Isdin, SA to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 21 May 1996 in Case T-148/95, W v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Permanent partial invalidity - Surgical operation)

text:
No C 197/18        | EN j                Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6. 1. 96
      Removal from the register of Case C-116/95 ( ] )              Register of Case C-l 16/95 : Commission of the European
                        (96/C 197/37)                               Communities v. Italian Republic.
By order of 3 May 1 996 , the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the            (') OJ No C 159, 24. 6 . 1995 .
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 21 May 1996                                                         of 22 May 1996
in Case T-148/95 , W v. Commission of the European                  in Case T-140/94 , Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens
                       Communities ( ] )                                                v. European Parliament ( 1 )
(Officials — Permanent partial invalidity — Surgical                (Officials — Action for annulment — Action for
                            operation)                              compensation — Interinstitutional transfer — Article 29 (1 )
                        ( 96/C 197/38                                                    of the Staff Regulations)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/39 )
              (Language of the case: French)                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                    In Case T-140/94 : Enrique Gutiérrez de Quijano y Llorens,
                                                                    an official of the Court of Justice of the European
In Case T-148/95 : W, an official of the Commission of the          Communities, represented initially by Carlos de la Sotilla y
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by          Diez de Oñate, of the Madrid Bar, and subsequently by
Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address          Sonia Sequéro Marcos, of the Malaga Bar, with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire              for service in Luxembourg at the residence of Enrique
Myson, 1 rue Glesener, against the Commission of the                Quijano, 53 rue de Beggen, against the European Parliament
European Communities ( Agent: Julian Currall ) —                    ( Agents : Manfred Peter and José Luis Rufas Quintana ) —
application for, first, the annulment of the Commission's           application for the annulment of the European Parliament's
decision of 25 October 1994 fixing the applicant's                  decision of 10 January 1994 , rejecting the applicant's
permanent partial invalidity rate at 0 % for as long as he          complaint against the earlier decision of 16 August 1993
refused to undergo a surgical operation and, secondly, an           whereby the Parliament rejected his application for transfer
order requiring the Commission to pay the applicant's               to a post as a Spanish-language interpreter, and also for
doctors' fees and symbolic damages of one ecu in                    compensation for the non-material damage which the
compensation for the non-material damage allegedly                  applicant claims to have suffered by reason of the refusal of
suffered — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ),           such transfer — the Court of First Instance ( Second
composed of R. Schintgen ( President of the Chamber ), R.           Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner ( President of the
Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,        Chamber ), C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on           B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
21 May 1996 , in which it:                                          given a judgment on 22 May 1996, in which it:
                                                                    1 , annuls the Parliament's decision of 10 January 1994
1 , dismisses the application;                                             rejecting the applicant's complaint against the rejection
                                                                           of his candidature for the vacant post which was the
                                                                           subject of Notice No PE/LA/91 of 15 March 1993;
2 , orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                    2 , dismisses the remainder of the application;
0 ) OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                  3 , orders the Parliament to pay the whole of the costs.
                                                                     ( ! ) OJ No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .


title: Case C-333/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tarkastuslautakunta by order of that tribunal of 31 May 2000 in the case of Päivikki Maaheimo

text:
C 335/32              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      25.11.2000
     The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance,         (a)   if so, does Article 73 in conjunction with Article 75 of
     which does not have to interpret French law but only to                 Regulation No 1408/71, having regard also to Article 10a
     apply it in appropriate cases, committed an obvious error               and to the fact that the Laki lasten kotihoidon ja yksityisen
     in holding that the Parliament’s argument that it could                 hoidon tuesta is not mentioned in Annex IIa of the
     negotiate with self-employed taxi drivers without causing               regulation, impose an obligation to pay home childcare
     them to infringe French legislation was ‘credible’. The                 allowance in respect of a child in the family of an
     Court of First Instance had to find that the Parliament                 employee posted temporarily to another Member State,
     failed to take any steps with the French authorities                    even in a case where the condition concerning actual
     to obtain information, claiming that it was for those                   residence which is a condition for receipt of the benefit
     authorities to approach the Parliament and for the self-                under national legislation is not satisfied, as a conse-
     employed taxi drivers to comply with the legislation in                 quence of which the choice referred to in the law between
     the performance of the contract, without concerning                     a day-care place organised by the local authority and
     itself with the possibility that the call for tenders might             home child-care allowance is not possible to make or has
     have an effect in breach of the legislation.                            not in fact been made;
—    Infringement of essential procedural requirements (insuf-         (b) if not, does Community law impose an obligation on
     ficient statement of reasons).                                          another ground to pay home child-care allowance in
—    Error in assessing the plea in law claiming discrimination.             another Member State in the situation described in
                                                                             point (a)?
—    After the revelations in the defence, AICS was justified in
     requesting the Court of First Instance to hold that the
     condition appearing in the notice concerning three years’         (1) Council Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the appli-
     business had been infringed, and the plea in law raised on            cation of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
                                                                           employed persons and to members of their families moving
     that point by AICS should have been accepted.                         within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971, p. 416).
—    Since it has been shown that the Parliament established
     an unlawful system of working to the benefit of self-
     employed taxi drivers and to the detriment of AICS
     carrying on the business at a large discount enabling it to
     submit its offer, the conditions for holding the institution
     liable and awarding compensation to a private person
     suffering loss are met.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
                                                                       Gerichtshof of the Republic of Austria by order of that
                                                                       court of 26 January 2000 in the case of Republic of
                                                                                Austria against Martin Huber
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tarkastuslau-
takunta by order of that tribunal of 31 May 2000 in the                                         (Case C-336/00)
                  case of Päivikki Maaheimo
                                                                                (2000/C 335/57)
                        (Case C-333/00)
                        (2000/C 335/56)                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 (Supreme Court) of the Republic of Austria of 26 January
European Communities by an order of the Tarkastuslautakunta            2000, received at the Court Registry on 14 September 2000,
(Social Security Review Tribunal), Finland, of 31 May 2000,            for a preliminary ruling in the case of Republic of Austria
which was received at the Court Registry on 11 September               against Martin Huber on the following questions:
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Päivikki Maaheimo
on the following questions:                                            1.    Was Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of 30 June
                                                                             1992 on agricultural production methods compatible
Does home child-care allowance under the Laki lasten kotihoi-                with the requirements of the protection of the environ-
don ja yksityisen hoidon tuesta (Law on home child-care                      ment and the maintenance of the countryside (OJ 1992
allowance and private child-care allowance, 1128/1996) fall                  L 215, p. 85) validly adopted?
within the material scope of Community law as a family
benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1)(h) of Council               2.    Does a decision on the approval of a programme under
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the appli-                    Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 of
cation of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-              30 June 1992 on agricultural production methods com-
employed persons and to members of their families moving                     patible with the requirements of the protection of the
within the Community (1), as amended and updated by Council                  environment and the maintenance of the countryside also
Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 and amended                       encompass the content of the programmes submitted by
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of 30 October 1989;                   the Member States for approval?


title: Action brought on 22 December 1995 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-404/95)

text:
No C 95/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 3 . 96
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                        of 2 February 1996
                                                                       — Infringement of essential procedural requirements, first
in Case C-257/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                paragraph of Article 33 of the ECSC Treaty:
the Tribunal Administratif, Clermont-Ferrand ( France )
Gérard Bresle v. Préfet de la Région Auvergne and Préfet du               — inaccurate, incomplete finding of the facts on which
                          Puy-de-Dôme ( 1 )                                   the Commission's decision is based,
   (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
                                                                          — infringement of the duty to state reasons and of the
                              96/C 95/06 )                                    principle audi alteram partem :
                (Language of the case: French)                                — the Commission has not dealt with the argument
                                                                                put forward in the alternative by the Federal
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                      Government to the effect that the closure of
         published in the European Court Reports)                                 capacity undertaken by the purchaser of the
                                                                                privatized undertaking justified the aid of the
In Case C-257/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                                amount declared according to the practice
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Administratif                                  adopted by the Commission ( see 1993 Report on
( Administrative Court ), Clermont-Ferrand (France ) for a                        Competition Policy ),
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Gerard Bresle and Préfet de la Region                           — the Commission did not deal with the essential
Auvergne and Préfet du Puy-de-Dome — on the                                       arguments put forward by the applicant with
interpretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty — the Court,                        regard to the commercial considerations
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.                           connected with the loan decision of December
Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch                         1993 ,
(Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A.
Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn,                    — the Commission omitted to examine to what
C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón                         extent a bank acting in the private sector, and not
and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judgess; G. Cosmas,                               in a position akin to a shareholder, would have
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on                          acted in the actual situation obtaining in
2 February 1996 , the operative part of which is a                                December 1993 . The assumption that no private
follows :                                                                         bank would have granted a loan replacing capital
                                                                                does not in any event constitute sufficient reason
The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the                           for refraining from discussing other financing
Tribunal Administratif de Clermont-Ferrand by judgment                            possibilities,
of 27 June 1995 is inadmissible.
                                                                      — infringement of the substantive law on aid ( Article 4 ( c )
(') OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .                                            of the ECSC Treaty and Article 1 ( 2 ) of Commission
                                                                          Decision 3855/91 /ECSC — the Steel Aid ( Code ):
                                                                          — Article 1 of the contested decision wrongly describes
                                                                              the loan of DM 20 million granted in 1984 by
Action brought on 22 December 1995 by the Federal                             Hamburgische Landesbank Girozentrale ( HLB ) on
Republic of Germany against the Commission of the                             behalf of Hamburg to the shareholders of the
                    European Communities                                      successor company in order to raise the share capital
                          Case C-404/95                                       of the Neue Hamburger Stahlwerke Gmbh ( HSW ) as
                            ( 96/C 95/07 )                                    a subsidy within the meaning of Article 4 (c ) of the
                                                                              ECSC Treaty. Given the state of knowledge at the
An action against the Commission of the European                              material time, the City of Hamburg had a substantial
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                    financial interest in the undertaking's continuing in
European Communities on 22 December 1995 by the                               being through a successor company, the actual
Federal Republic of Germany, represented by Ernst Röder,                      course of events confirmed this assessment,
Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs,
D-53107 Bonn, Michael Schütte, Rechtsanwalt at the                            Even if the Commission regards the DM 20 million
Kammergericht Berlin, 99— 10 Rue de la Loi, B-1040                            loan as an aid authorized in 1984/85 , the applicant,
                                                                              as a Member State, is entitled to contest the
Brussels, and Wolfgang Mueller-Stöfen, Rechtsanwalt at the
Oberlandesgericht Hamburg.                                                    erroneous interpretation of the concept of aid by an
                                                                              action for annulment pursuant to Article 33 ( 1 ) of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   the ECSC Treaty,
1 . annul Commission Decision C(95 ) 2754 final of                        — the Commission wrongly regards the DM 20 million
     31 October 1995 on aid from the Freie and Hansestadt                     increase in December 1992 in the credit line made
    Hamburg to the ECSC steel undertaking Hamburger                           available to HSW by HLB — under a credit contract
    Stahlwerke Gmbh;                                                          subscribed by the City of Hamburg — as an aid
                                                                              within the meaning of Article 4 ( c ) of the ECSC
2 . order the Commission to pay the costs .                                   Treaty: in the circumstances prevailing at the
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 3 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 95/5
         material time, the increase in that credit line was                 Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the abolition of the
         consistent with the conduct of private investor in                  restrictions on the use of cable television networks for
         HSW acting on market economy principles, who had                    the provision of already liberalized telecommunications
         to   consider   that   his   substantial  loan   to  this           services ( 1 ),
         undertaking in liquidation would be regarded as
         replacing equity capital . In particular, the extent of       — order the defendant institution to pay the costs .
         the commitment to the company which was the
         predecessor of the new one is completely unsuited for         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         use as a yardstick for assessing the nature as aid of the
         increase in the credit line granted in 1992 . A private       — lack of competence of the Commission : the Commission
         investor assesses whether in a crisis he should realize             is not specifying obligations already in existence under
         a large loss by terminating a large commitment or                   Article 90 ( 1 ), rather it is a new obligation to liberalize
         buy himself, by making a further limited capital                    the market outwith the relevant legislation in existence
         injection, a realistic prospect of avoiding or reducing             at that time, in turn giving rise to areas as yet unregulated
         his loss, still in the light of the circumstances at                which seriously affects the universal provision of
         the time . It always turns on which decision is the                 services, which may only be supervised by means of the
         most reasonable one commercially in the actual                      proper exercise of the Community's legislative power,
         circumstances . There is, however, no commercial                    that is, by means of the system of harmonization, which
         law which states that a successor company founded                   is a matter solely for the Council and the European
         to avoid the liquidation of a company should                        Parliament both under the Treaty ( specifically
         invariably be financed only to the extent to which the              Articles 87 and 100a of the EC Treaty ) and under
         company which became insolvent was financed,                        the resolutions adopted in this sphere . This is an
                                                                             encroachment of powers which may in no way be
    — the Commission further wrongly assumes that the                        considered to be sanctioned by Article 90 ( 3 ) or the
         extension and increase of the credit line in December               case-law of the Court of Justice interpreting it,
         1993 constitutes an aid : the measure is based on a
         recommendation of an independent firm of business             — misuse           of   powers :     by      imposing   the  direct
         consultants and had the aim of supporting HSW by                    interconnection of cable television networks, the
         means of a further, relatively small increase in the                Commission is in fact implementing a harmonization
         credit line until the business was sold and hence of                measure in breach of the principles of interinstitutional
         substantially reducing the losses feared in the event               balance enshrined in the Treaty and in the case-law.
         of   the  termination      of  the  commitment .    The
         subsequent actual sale shows that the overall loss            f 1 ) OJ No L 256 , 26 . 10 . 1995 , p . 49 .
         resulting from the privatization was markedly less
         than it would have been had the commitment been
         terminated in December 1993 .
— In the alternative : incorrect calculation of the amount of
    the aid .
                                                                       Action brought on 18 January 1996 by the Portuguese
                                                                       Republic against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                Case C-12/96
                                                                                ( 96/C 95/09 )
Action brought on 18 January 1996 by the Kingdom                       An action against the Commission of the European
of Spain against the Commission of the European                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                           Communities
                                                                       the European Communities on 18 January 1996 by the
                          Case C-ll /96 )                              Portuguese Republic, represented by Dr Paulo de Pitta e
                           ( 96/C 95/08 )                              Cunha, Dr Nuno Ruiz and Dr Luis Fernandes, acting as
                                                                       Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                       Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allee Scheffer.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 18 January 1996 by the                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Gloria Calvo Diaz,
                                                                       — annul Article 1 ( 2 ) and Article 2 of Commission
Abogado del Estado, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4 and 6 Boulevard                         Directive 95/5 1 /EC of 18 October 1995 amending
E. Servais .                                                                 Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the abolition of the
                                                                             restrictions on the use of cable television networks for
                                                                             the provision of already liberalized telecommunications
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 services (');
— annul the second indent of Article 1 ( 2 ) of Commission             — order the Commission to pay all the costs of the
    Directive 95/5 1 /EC of 18 October 19 95 amending                        proceedings .


title: Case C-487/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — Laimonis Treimanis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 — Articles 1(2)(c), 2 and 7(1) — Relief from import duties on personal property — The term ‘property intended … for meeting … household needs’ — Motor vehicle imported into the European Union — Vehicle used by a member of the family of the importing owner)

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/11

      Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 September 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā rajona tiesa — Latvia) — Laimonis Treimanis v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
      (Case C-487/11) (1)

      (Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 - Articles 1(2)(c), 2 and 7(1) - Relief from import duties on personal property - The term ‘property intended … for meeting … household needs’ - Motor vehicle imported into the European Union - Vehicle used by a member of the family of the importing owner)
      (2012/C 331/17)
      Language of the case: Latvian

         Referring court

      Administratīvā rajona tiesa

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Laimonis Treimanis

         Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Administratīvā rajona tiesa Rīgas — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1) — Relief from import duty in respect of personal property — Concept of a household — Car used for the needs of a household in a third country — Car imported by its owner, essentially resident in the third country, into a Member State of the European Union for use free of charge by a member of the owner’s family who has moved his residence to that Member State and who formed part of the same household as the owner before the vehicle was imported

         Operative part of the judgment

      Articles 2 and 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty must be interpreted as meaning that a private motor vehicle imported from a third country into the customs territory of the European Union may be imported free of import duties provided that the importer has actually transferred his normal place of residence to the customs territory of the European Union, which is a matter for the national court to determine. A motor vehicle used free of charge by a member of that importer’s family, that is by a person living under the same roof as the importer or mainly dependent on him, a matter for the national court to determine, is to be regarded as being intended for meeting the needs of the importer’s household, and that use does not result in loss of entitlement to the relief in question.

         (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011.


title: Case T-146/99: Action brought on 15 June 1999 by Rui Teixeira Neves against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

text:
C 226/44              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.8.1999
Action brought on 12 June 1999 by Hortiplant, S.A.T.                    In support of its claims, the applicant alleges that:
     against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                        — Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (2) was misapplied
                                                                             in respect of the applicant’s actings: first, in that there
                        (Case T-143/99)                                      were no irregularities of the kind complained of by the
                                                                             Commission, secondly, because that provision does not
                                                                             provide a proper legal basis for a withdrawal of the type
                        (1999/C 226/77)                                      being contested, since its wording only refers to reduction
                                                                             or suspension of aid;
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       — infringement of the rights of the defence in as much as
                                                                             procedural requirements were not in the least observed
                                                                             during the proceedings, particularly in view of the criminal-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                    law consequences to which they could give rise. First, the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   Commission’s letter of 3 April 1995 which, in the
European Communities on 12 June 1999 by Hortiplant, S.A.T.,                  applicant’s view, could be regarded as a statement of
whose registered office is at Amposta, Tarragona, (Spain),                   objections, was vitiated by its lack of clarity in its
represented by Concepción Fernändez Vicién and Eva Contre-                  accusations of alleged irregularities. Furthermore, the Com-
ras Ynzenga, of the Cuatrecasas Chambers, 78 Avenue d’Au-                    mission, again according to the applicant, took into
derghem, 1040 Brussels.                                                      consideration a number of documents which had been
                                                                             sent to it by mistake, not least because it had not stated
                                                                             that the justification provided in respect of the staff
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  expenditure was inadequate. Moreover, there is no evidence
                                                                             that the defendant followed the procedure provided for in
                                                                             Article 24(1) of Regulation 4253/88 for suspension or
— annul the Commission’s decision of 4 March 1999 with-                      reduction of aid.
     drawing the aid granted to Hortiplant, S.A.T.;
— in the alternative, annul in part that decision and pro-              Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of
     portionally reduce the aid granted by Commission Decision          proportionality and the obligation of providing a statement of
     C (92) 3125 of 4 March 1999;                                       the reasons on which a measure is based.
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                        (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88 of 19 December 1988
                                                                            laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 2052/88, as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section (OJ 1988
                                                                            L 374, p. 25).
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988
                                                                            laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
The present action has been brought against the decision of                 different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
the Commission of 4 March 1999 withdrawing the aid granted                  operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
to the applicant undertaking by virtue of Commission Decision               existing financial instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).
C (92) 3125 of 4 March 1999 relating to aid granted by the
EAGGF Guidance Section, pursuant to Council Regulation
(EEC) No 4256/88 (1), for project no 9 ES.06.022 ‘Initiative
consisting in a pilot project to demonstrate a new high
efficiency production system for nurseries: application to
ornamental and woodland species’.
This project was born of research carried out by the applicant
which showed improved vegetative and productive behaviour               Action brought on 15 June 1999 by Rui Teixeira Neves
in seedlings obtained in a new type of container, known as a            against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
‘Fifton Plant’ and which appeared particularly suited to the
production of ornamental and woodland tree and shrub
species which required specific soil depths in order to take                                       (Case T-146/99)
root and develop properly.
                                                                                (1999/C 226/78)
The reason for the contested decision is based on a number of
financial and accounting irregularities which, in the applicant’s
view, took place at the drafting stage of the aforementioned                              (Language of the case: Portuguese)
project; said irregularities concern, in particular, its co-
financing by the undertaking Resteya, and also the justification
of certain staff expenditure and of the invoices paid to the            An action against the Court of Justice of the European
undertakings Gentforsa and Cedarcliff.                                  Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 226/45
of the European Communities on 15 June 1999 by Rui                      2.     Breach of the principle of equal treatment and of the
Teixeira Neves, residing at 10 Am Gronn, L-5222 Sandweiler,             objectivity of selection. Absence of points. According to the
represented by Adriano Encarnação, of the Oporto Bar, with             applicant the criteria and procedure adopted for the oral
an address for service in Luxembourg at the applicant’s address.        examination also breach the principle of equal treatment of all
                                                                        the candidates and of the objectivity in the selection made by
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the Board, inasmuch as the questions put being too easy,
                                                                        general, descriptive and practical in nature, discriminated
1. annul the decision of the Selection Board in Competition             against the better qualified candidates, and thus did not permit
    No CJ 41/988 of 15 March 1999 not to include the                    the slightest objective and effective comparison to be made of
    applicant in the list of suitable candidates;                       the candidates’ merits, as attested by the fact that no points
                                                                        were awarded.
2. annul all the acts subsequent to the abovementioned
    competition, including the appointment of the candidate             3.     Inadequate, defective and contradictory statement of
    selected to fill the post of Legal Adviser on Administrative.       reasons. One of the reasons for deciding to exclude the
    Matters;                                                            applicant was his limited experience of contracts which
                                                                        according to the applicant, contradicts the decision of the
3. order the defendant to, pay the costs, including those               Selection Board itself to admit him to the oral examination on
    incurred by the applicant.                                          the ground that the applicant met all the admission conditions
                                                                        set down in the competition notice, including his extensive
                                                                        experience in duties related to those of the post to be filled.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Moreover, not only does the failure to award either overall or
                                                                        partial points to the candidates, as acknowledged in the
                                                                        statement of reasons, breach the principle of the objectivity of
1.     Breach of the competition notice. According to the               the Board’s selection, the fact that the statement of reasons
applicant, the content of the oral examination exceeded the             makes no mention whatsoever of the results of the candidates
framework set out in the competition notice and was not in              constitutes a fatal defect.
keeping with the purposes of the examination and of the
competition. The fact that the relative importance accorded to,
and time allowed for, the optional papers (contract law and             4.     Misuse of powers. According to the applicant, the
public tendering procedures) was the same as that for the               appointing authority’s intention from the start was not to
main compulsory papers (Community law and law of the                    organise a fair competition but to prepare the ground for the
Community civil service) is contrary to the provisions of the           appointment of a pre-selected candidate on the basis of criteria
notice according to which knowledge of public tendering law             unrelated to the duties involved and, as a precaution, to
was merely desirable, and did not constitute a condition sine           eliminate over-qualified candidates, so that the content of the
qua non for admission to the oral examination (and a fortiori           oral examination was chosen by the Board with the purpose
for inclusion in the list of suitable candidates).                      of preventing the best lawyers from succeeding.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 January 2002 in Case T-174/00: Biret International SA v Council of the European Union (Substances having a hormonal action — Directive 88/146/EEC — Action for damages — Period of limitation)

text:
29.6.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 156/19
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 11 January 2002                                                        of 11 January 2002
in Case T-174/00: Biret International SA v Council of the                 in Case T-210/00: Etablissements Biret et Cie. SA v
                       European Union (1)                                                Council of the European Union (1)
(Substances having a hormonal action — Directive 88/146/                  (Substances having a hormonal action — Directive 88/146/
     EEC — Action for damages — Period of limitation)                          EEC — Action for damages — Period of limitation)
                         (2002/C 156/35)                                                           (2002/C 156/36)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                            (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-174/00: Biret International SA, a company in                    In Case T-210/00, Établissements Biret et Cie SA, established
judicial liquidation, established in Paris, represented in these          in Paris (France), represented by S. Rodrigues, lawyer, with an
proceedings by M. de Thoré, liquidator, and by S. Rodrigues,              address for service in Luxembourg, v Council of the European
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against                Union (Agents: J. Carbery and F. P. Ruggeri Laderchi), support-
Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Carbery and                     ed by Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi), supported by Commission of the                    T. Christoforou and A. Bordes): Application under Article 178
European Communities (Agents: T. Christoforou and A. Bor-                 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC) and the second
des) — application under Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now                paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty (now the second
Article 235 EC) and the second paragraph of Article 215 of                paragraph of Article 288 EC) for compensation for the damage
the EC Treaty (now the second paragraph of Article 288 EC)                allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of its subsidiary,
for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the                 Biret International SA, being placed in judicial liquidation
applicant as a result of the prohibition on the importation into          following the prohibition on the importation into the Com-
the Community of beef and veal treated with certain hormones              munity of beef and veal treated with certain hormones,
— the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of                the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:
B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;              B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given         J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 11 January 2002, in which it:                               a judgment on 11 January 2002, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the action as being partly inadmissible and for the       1.    Dismisses the action as being partly inadmissible and for the
      rest unfounded;                                                           rest unfounded;
2.    Orders the applicant to pay, in addition to its own costs, those    2.    Orders the applicant to pay, in addition to its own costs, those
      incurred by the Council. The Commission shall pay its own                 incurred by the Council. The Commission shall pay its own
      costs.                                                                    costs.
(1) OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.                                                (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.