title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 September 2000 in Case C-19/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Modelo Continente SGPS SA v Fazenda Pública (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Charge for drawing up a notarially attested act recording an increase in the share capital of a capital company and an amendment to its statutes)

text:
25.11.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 335/9
2.    Annuls Commission Decision C (96) 1185 of 14 August                         attested acts recording a transaction covered by the directive,
      1996 reducing the assistance granted in Decision C (89) 0570                under a system where notaries are employed by the State and
      of 22 March 1989 and Commission Decision C (96) 1186 of                     the charges in question are paid in part to that State for the
      14 August 1996 reducing the assistance granted in Decision                  financing of its official business.
      C (89) 0570 of 22 March 1989;
                                                                            2.    A charge payable for drawing up a notarially attested act
3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings                   recording an increase in the share capital or an amendment to
      before both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.           the statutes of a capital company is, where it amounts to a tax
                                                                                for the purposes of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive
                                                                                85/303, in principle prohibited under Article 10(c) thereof.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                            3.    ‘Fees or dues’ within the meaning of Article 12(1)(e) of Directive
                                                                                69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, do not cover a
                                                                                charge collected for drawing up a notarially attested act
                                                                                recording an increase in the share capital or an amendment to
                                                                                the statutes of a capital company, such as the charge at issue in
                                                                                the main proceedings, the amount of which increases in direct
                                                                                proportion to the share capital raised and in respect of which
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           there is no upper limit.
                                                                            4.    Article 10 of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive
                         (Fourth Chamber)                                         85/303, creates rights on which individuals may rely in
                                                                                proceedings before the national courts.
                      of 21 September 2000
                                                                            (1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.
in Case C-19/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Modelo Continen-
                te SGPS SA v Fazenda Pública (1)
(Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of
capital — Charge for drawing up a notarially attested act                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
recording an increase in the share capital of a capital
          company and an amendment to its statutes)                                                   (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 September 2000
                           (2000/C 335/16)
                                                                            in Case C-124/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Sozialgericht, Münster): Carl Borawitz v Landesver-
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                         sicherungsanstalt Westfalen (1)
                                                                            (Social security for migrant workers — Equal treatment —
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      National legislation fixing, in connection with the transfer
                    in the European Court Reports)                          abroad of retroactive pension payments, a higher minimum
                                                                                amount than that paid within the country)
In Case C-19/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Supremo Tribunal                                            (2000/C 335/17)
Administrativo, Portugal, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Modelo Conti-
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
nente SGPS SA and Fazenda Pública, in the presence of
Ministério Público — on the interpretation of Articles 4(3), 10
and 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English                                 in the European Court Reports)
Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by Council
Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (OJ 1985 L 156, p. 23)                 In Case C-124/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
— the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,                   the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Sozialgericht,
President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm                   Münster, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
(Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass,                pending before that court between Carl Borawitz and Landes-
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 September 2000, in                    versicherungsanstalt Westfalen, joined party: Bundesrepublik
which it has ruled:                                                         Deutschland — on the interpretation of Community law in
                                                                            matters of social security, in particular the principle of equal
1.    Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning               treatment — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:
      indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council       D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P.J.G.
      Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, must be interpreted             Kapteyn and A. La Pergola, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
      as meaning that charges constitute taxes for the purposes of the      R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 September
      directive where they are collected for drawing up notarially          2000, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-255/09: Action brought on 30 June 2009 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos v OHIM — Caixa d'Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona ( la Caixa )

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/32

         Action brought on 30 June 2009 — Caixa Geral de Depósitos v OHIM — Caixa d'Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona (‘la Caixa’)
   (Case T-255/09)
   2009/C 193/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Caixa Geral de Depósitos (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: F. de la Rosa and M. Lobato García-Miján, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Caixa d'Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 24 March 2009 based on Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation on the Community trade mark;

               —

               alternatively, annul the earlier decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 24 March 2009 based on Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation on the Community trade mark;

               —

               order OHIM and, if appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs incurred in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: CAIXA D'ESTALVIS I PENSIONS DE BARCELONA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark which contents the verbal element ‘la Caixa’ (Application No 4 685 145) for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 36, 38 and 45.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: CAIXA GERAL DE DEPOSITOS S.A.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Various Portuguese word marks which contain the prefix ‘caixa’ (Nos 357 311, 261 198, 268 466, 302 708, 303 290, 325 155, 325 156, 325 224, 330 542 and 342 311) for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36, and Portuguese figurative mark (No 357 310) which contains the word ‘caixa’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and contested decision annulled.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark and, alternatively, Article 7(1)(b) thereof.


title: Case C-169/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów (Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 66(a) to (c) — Transport and shipping services — Chargeability — Date on which payment is received and no later than 30 days from the date on which the services are supplied — Invoice issued earlier)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/31

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) sp. z o.o. v Minister Finansów
   (Case C-169/12) (1)

   (Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 66(a) to (c) - Transport and shipping services - Chargeability - Date on which payment is received and no later than 30 days from the date on which the services are supplied - Invoice issued earlier)
   2013/C 225/51
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TNT Express Worldwide (Poland) sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Minister Finansów

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sad Administracyjny (Poland) — Interpretation of Article 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), as amended — National legislation fixing the time when liability to pay VAT in respect of supplies of transport and shipping services arises on the date when the price is paid and no later than 30 days from the date on which those services are supplied, even when the invoice is issued earlier

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 66 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/117/EC of 16 December 2008, is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides that, in respect of transport and shipping services, value added tax is to become chargeable on the date on which payment is received in full or in part, but no later than 30 days from the date on which those services are supplied, even where the invoice has been issued earlier and specifies a later deadline for payment.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: Case C-86/03: Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/10                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
Despite the absence from the directive of guidelines and                 4.    If the answer is in the negative, may the courts of the
criteria for determining whether there is any need to conduct                  Member States extend the meaning of a commercial agent
an assessment of the environmental impact of a given project,                  to cover the foregoing person, by analogical application
Article 4(2) cannot be regarded as having been correctly                       of their national legislation which incorporated the
applied where there is no reasonable justification for a decision              directive into their domestic law, or is that impermissible
not to subject a project to that procedure.                                    because it runs counter to the uniformity of Community
                                                                               law?
( 1) OJ L 175 of 5.7.1985, p. 40.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ L 372 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.
                                                                         Action brought on 26 February 2003 by the Hellenic
                                                                         Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Polimeles
Protodikio Athinon by judgment of that Court of 27 April                                                munities
2001 in the case of Anastasia Mavrona kai Sia O.E. against
        Delta Etairia Simmetokhon Anonimos Etairia                                                   (Case C-86/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/19)
                          (Case C-85/03)
                         (2003/C 112/18)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 26 February 2003 by the Hellenic Republic,
                                                                         represented by Ekaterini Samoni-Radou and Panayiotis Milon-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   opoulos, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
European Communities by judgment of the Polimeles Protodi-               Luxembourg.
kio Athinon (Court of First Instance, Athens) of 27 April 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 26 February 2003, for a                The applicant claims that the Court should:
preliminary ruling in the case of Anastasia Mavrona kai Sia
O.E. against Delta Etairia Simmetokhon Anonimos Etairia on               1.    annul Commission Decision C(2002) 2575 final of
the following questions:                                                       17 December 2002 on a request by Greece for authoris-
                                                                               ation to use heavy fuel oils with a maximum sulphur
1.    Does the definition of a commercial agent in Article 1(2)                content of 3 % by mass in part of its territory; (1)
      of Council Directive 86/653/EEC (1) extend to a self-
      employed intermediary who purchases in his own name                2.    declare Directive 1999/32/EC inapplicable on the basis
      goods from the principal, deducting his commission from                  of Article 241 of the EC Treaty; and
      the purchase price, and subsequently sells those goods to
      third parties, but acting on behalf of the principal?              3.    order the Commission to pay the costs.
2.    If the answer is in the negative, in the present instance
      has the definition of commercial agent laid down by                Pleas in law and main arguments
      that article been laid down in contradistinction to the
      foregoing person (that is to say to a self-employed                —     Infringement of rights of defence;
      intermediary who purchases in his own name goods
      from the principal, deducting his commission from the
                                                                         —     Infringement of the principle of effectiveness (effet utile);
      purchase price, and subsequently sells those goods to
      third parties, but acting on behalf of the principal), or is
                                                                         —     Infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate
      there in fact a lacuna?
                                                                               expectations;
3.    If there is a lacuna, is it possible, on the basis of the          —     Infringement of the principle of proportionality;
      principles of equity, for the foregoing definition in
      Article 1(2) of the directive to be applied by analogy to a        —     Infringement of Article 252 EC.
      self-employed intermediary who purchases in his own
      name goods from the principal, deducting his com-
      mission from the purchase price, and subsequently sells            (1 ) OJ L 4, 9.1.2003, p. 16.
      those goods to third parties, but acting on behalf of the
      principal?


title: Case F-37/15: Action brought on 3 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/26

         Action brought on 3 March 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-37/15)
   (2015/C 178/27)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s claim to pay him the double resettlement allowance when he moved to live in Switzerland.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority of 19 May 2014 rejecting the applicant’s claim for payment of the resettlement allowance corresponding to the second month of his basic salary;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-400/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2013 — Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders legally represented by Marianne Sanders v David Verhaegen

text:
               21.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 16 July 2013 — Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders legally represented by Marianne Sanders v David Verhaegen
   (Case C-400/13)
   2013/C 274/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders legally represented by Marianne Sanders

      Defendant: David Verhaegen

      Question referred

   Is Paragraph 28(1) of the Gesetzes zur Geltendmachung von Unterhaltsansprüchen im Verkehr mit ausländischen Staaten [Act on the Recovery of Maintenance in Relations with Foreign States] (Auslandsunterhaltsgesetz — AUG) of 23 May 2011, BGBl I S. 898, contrary to Article 3(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008? (1)

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations; OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1.


title: Case C-642/13 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch Belgium v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria — Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information — Single infringement — Proof — Fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Reasonable time — Proportionality)

text:
               3.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 104/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2017 — Villeroy & Boch Belgium v European Commission
   (Case C-642/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Bathroom fittings and fixtures markets of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Austria - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Price coordination and exchange of sensitive business information - Single infringement - Proof - Fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Reasonable time - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 104/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Appellant: Villeroy & Boch Belgium (represented by: O.W. Brouwer and N. Lorjé, advocaten)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: L. Malferrari and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Villeroy & Boch Belgium SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case T-338/10: Order of the General Court of 13 May 2011 — Commission v Tornasol Films

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/32

         Order of the General Court of 13 May 2011 — Commission v Tornasol Films
   (Case T-338/10) (1)

   2011/C 186/58
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-428/05: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-Export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export refunds — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Definition of undue payment of a refund — Payment of a refund on the basis of incomplete documentation — Possibility of completing the documents relating to the payment of the refund after the expiry of the periods referred to in Articles 47(2) and 48(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 in the context of a subsequent recovery procedure)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/8

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, Germany) — Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-Export v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-428/05) (1)

   (Export refunds - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Definition of ‘undue payment of a refund’ - Payment of a refund on the basis of incomplete documentation - Possibility of completing the documents relating to the payment of the refund after the expiry of the periods referred to in Articles 47(2) and 48(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 in the context of a subsequent recovery procedure)
   (2007/C 183/13)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Firma Laub GmbH & Co. Vieh & Fleisch Import-Export

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Articles 11(3), subparagraph 1, first sentence, Article 47(2) and 48(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 495/97 of 18 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 77, p. 12) — Concept of ‘undue payment of a refund’ — Recovery of refunds awarded on production of an incomplete transport document, the duly completed document having been produced only after expiry of the time-limits
   Operative part of the judgment
   An export refund can not be regarded as ‘unduly paid’, within the meaning of the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 11(3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 604/98 of 17 March 1998, if the beneficiary, in the context of a recovery procedure for the refund, produces the necessary evidence to justify its right to that refund. It is a matter for the competent national authorities to set a reasonable time-limit which allows the beneficiary to produce this evidence.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Case C-566/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 November 2011 — Iberdrola, S.A. and Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v Spanish State, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Endesa, S.A.

text:
               11.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 39/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 14 November 2011 — Iberdrola, S.A. and Gas Natural SDG, S.A. v Spanish State, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Endesa, S.A.
   (Case C-566/11)
   2012/C 39/13
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: Iberdrola, SA and Gas Natural SDG, S.A.

      Other parties: Spanish State, Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, S.A. and Endesa

      Question referred

   May Article 10 of Directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC be interpreted as not preventing application of national legislative measures of the kind under review in these proceedings, the purpose and effect of which are to reduce remuneration for the activity of electricity production by an amount equivalent to the value of the greenhouse gas emission allowances allocated free of charge during the relevant period?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32.


title: Case T-430/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2009 — Bodegas Montebello v OHIM — Montebello (MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community trade mark MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE — Earlier national word mark MONTEBELLO — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Absence of similarity between the goods — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 29 April 2009 — Bodegas Montebello v OHIM — Montebello (MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE)
   (Case T-430/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark MONTEBELLO RHUM AGRICOLE - Earlier national word mark MONTEBELLO - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Absence of similarity between the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 141/79
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Bodegas Montebello, SA (Montilla, Spain) (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, I. Lehmann Novo and A. Hernández Lehmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. López Fernández de Corres and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Montebello SARL (Petit-Bourg, France) (represented by: G.-G. Lamoureux, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 September 2007 (Case R 223/2007-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Bodegas Montebello, SA and Montebello SARL

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders Bodegas Montebello, SA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/56

         Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-57/04)
   (2004/C 94/148)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, established in České Budějovice (Czech Republic), represented by Fabienne Fajgenbaum, lawyer.
   Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 3 December 2003;

               —

               reject the application for the registration of BUDWEISER for Classes 16, 21, 25, 30 and 32 filed on 1 April 1996 on behalf of Anheuser-Busch;

               —

               order Anheuser-Busch to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

               Community trade mark sought:

               Figurative mark ‘BUDWEISER’ — Application No 33183 in respect of goods in Classes 16, 21, 25, 30 and 32

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Appellations of origin ‘BUDWEISER BIER’, ‘BUDWEISER BIER – BUDVAR’, ‘BUDWEISER BUDVAR’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). The applicant, entitled in France to use the above-mentioned appellations of origin, submits that French law enables it to oppose the registration of the mark sought without having to demonstrate that the appellations in question possess a reputation in France and without having to examine whether the use of the mark at issue could have the consequence of misappropriating or weakening the reputation of those appellations.

      (1)   Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-130/02: Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Kronopoly GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
13.7.2002              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 169/37
Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Torraspapel SA                         The Commission has also breached Article 15(2) of Regulation
  against the Commission of the European Communities                      17/62 in that it has wrongly classed the alleged infringement
                                                                          as ‘very serious’. Firstly, in defining the alleged cartel as ‘price
                                                                          fixing market sharing practices’, the Commission seeks to
                         (Case T-129/02)                                  confer a disproportionate importance on the alleged market
                                                                          allocation practices, misrepresenting their gravity. Secondly,
                                                                          in classing the alleged infringement as ‘very serious’, the
                        (2002/C 169/65)                                   Commission does not take account of the difference between
                                                                          agreements fixing prices, which lead to uniform prices, and
                                                                          other price agreements, which do not lead to uniform prices.
                   (Language of the case: English)                        Moreover, the Commission has failed properly to examine the
                                                                          relative gravity of the infringement allegedly committed by the
                                                                          applicant. In short, the defendant has failed to take into
                                                                          consideration the fact that the applicant, as it claims, did not
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 apply the price increases allegedly fixed and thus defeated the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                anti-competitive effects of the alleged cartel; in addition the
                                                                          Commission wrongly assessed the effective capacity of the
European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Torraspapel SA,
represented by Mr Onno W. Brouwer and Mr Francisco Cantos                 applicant to cause damage to competition.
of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Brussels (Belgium).
                                                                          (1) Not yet published in the OJ.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Article 1 of the contested Decision in so far as it
      establishes an infringement of Article 81, paragraph 1, of
      the Treaty by the applicant in the period from 1 January
      1992 to September 1993; and reduce the fine accord-
      ingly;                                                              Action brought on 17 April 2002 by Kronopoly GmbH
                                                                          & Co. KG against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
—     substantially reduce the amount of the fine imposed on
      the applicant in Article 3 of the contested Decision;
                                                                                (Case T-130/02)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2002/C 169/66)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The contested Decision in the present case is the same as in              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
case T-109/02 Bolloré/Commission (1). By this Decision, the               European Communities on 17 April 2002 by Kronopoly
Defendant found that the applicant and ten other manufac-                 GmbH & Co. KG, Heiligengrabe (Germany), represented by
turers of carbonless paper had infringed Article 81(1) of the             R. Nierer, lawyer.
EC Treaty and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement by
participating in a complex of agreements and concerted
practices by which they fixed price increases, allocated sales            The applicant claims that the Court should:
quotas and fixed market shares and set up machinery to
monitor the implementation of the restrictive agreements.                 —     annul the Commission’s decision of 5 February 2002 not
                                                                                to correct the decision of 3 July 2001 on planned aid
                                                                                No N 813/2000;
In support of its arguments, the applicant submits that the
Commission has wrongly applied Article 81(1) of the Treaty                —     order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay
and violated the principle of presumption of innocence, as                      those of the applicant.
well as an essential procedural requirement, as it has not
sufficiently proven that the applicant committed an infringe-
ment of the above-mentioned provision from January 1992
until September 1993. It is stressed in this regard that such an          Pleas in law and main arguments
approach does not mean that the applicant would recognise
that there was an infringement concerning the period there-
after. It has however chosen not to lodge an appeal against the           In the contested decision, the Commission established a
entire decision of the Commission.                                        competitive factor of 0,75 in respect of the notified aid. In the
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/38                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.7.2002
applicant’s view, the competitive factor should have been 1.               European Communities on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global
The German Government therefore applied for an increase of                 and Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
the notified aid and requested a corrective adjustment of the              Limited, represented by Mr Claude Delcorde of Dechert Price
factor from 0,75 to 1. The Commission refused that appli-                  & Rhoads, London (United Kingdom).
cation and informed the German Government that it did not
regard it as possible to make the requested adjustment.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
In its application, the applicant submits that, in adopting its            —     order that, pursuant to the second paragraph of
decision of 5 February 2002, the Commission failed to observe                    Article 288 EC, the Commission make good the damage
the principle of collegiality and the duty to state reasons, acted               caused to the applicants by paying them the sum of
in breach of, first, essential formal and procedural requirements                £ 25,5 million;
and, second, a provision to be applied in implementing the EC
Treaty and made improper use of its discretion.                            —     order that the Commission pay the costs of this appli-
                                                                                cation.
The failure to comply with essential formal requirements
consists in, first, the insufficient reasons on which the decision
was based. Furthermore, the Commission made improper use                   Pleas in law and main arguments
of its discretion by misinterpreting the underlying facts in such
a way that it avoided opening the investigation procedure even
though it should, at least, have conducted a preliminary                   The terms of this application are substantially similar to those
examination. Thus, the Commission failed to comply with the                of the application lodged in Case T-195/00 Thomas Cook and
procedural requirements laid down in Regulation No 659/                    Interpayment Services -v- Commission (1).
1999, which are intended to safeguard the rights of the
Member States and of the applicant. The applicant’s right to a
hearing was restricted.                                                    (1) OJ C 302, of 21.10.00, p. 24.
Moreover, the applicant submits that the Commission failed
to observe and/or misapplied the content of the provisions of
the multisectoral framework on regional aid and that it
wrongly and incompletely assessed the underlying facts. This
is shown, in particular, by the fact that the Commission failed            Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Greencore Group
to recognise the possibility of amending approved aid without              plc against the Commission of the European Communities
withdrawing it.
                                                                                (Case T-135/02)
Finally, the applicant contends that this is a case of unequal
treatment because, in another decision adopted at the same                                         (2002/C 169/68)
time on planned aid in the same sector, the capacity utilisation
rate of the relevant NACE class was correctly taken into
account whereas it was wrongly disregarded in the contested                                  (Language of the case: English)
decision.
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 25 April 2002 by Greencore
                                                                           Group plc, represented by Mr Alexander Böhlke of Kemmler
                                                                           Rapp Böhlke, Brussels (Belgium).
Action brought on 23 April 2002 by Travelex Global and
Financial Services Limited and Interpayment Services
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                               munities
                                                                           —     annul Commission Decision BUDG/C-2/RVT/49076 of
                          (Case T-131/02)                                        11 February 2002;
                                                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2002/C 169/67)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  By the current action, the applicant challenges the Decision to
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 refuse to pay interest on part of the competition fine imposed


title: Case C-140/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in the proceedings between Amalia Valesko and Zollamt Klagenfurt

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in the proceedings between Amalia Valesko and Zollamt Klagenfurt
   (Case C-140/05)
   (2005/C 143/32)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat (Austria) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Amalia Valesko and Zollamt Klagenfurt on the following questions:
   Question 1:

               On a proper construction of the provisions contained in the Documents concerning the accession of ... the Republic of Slovenia ... to the European Union, Annex XIII: List referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession: Slovenia; Heading 6. Taxation, paragraph 2 (Official Journal of the European Union of 23.9.2003, L 236), which state that, without prejudice to Article 8 of Council Directive 92/12/EEC on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, and having informed the Commission, Member States may, as long as the derogation from Article 2(1) of Directive 92/79/EEC — as last amended — applies, ‘maintain’ the same quantitative limits for cigarettes which may be brought into their territories from Slovenia without further excise duty payment as those applied with regard to cigarette imports from third countries, do they — in the light of the technical term ‘maintain’ — permit quantitative limits which applied in a Member State in respect of imports from inter alia the Republic of Slovenia as a third country until the accession of that country?

         Question 2:

               If the Court of Justice concludes that the Treaty provisions in question are not in fact to be construed as permitting quantitative limits which applied in a Member State in respect of imports from inter alia the Republic of Slovenia as a third country until the accession of that country:

                           On a proper construction of Articles 23, 25 and 26 of the EC Treaty, do the rules of a Member State, under which the exemption from excise duty applicable to tobacco products imported in the personal luggage of travellers who are normally resident in the tax territory of that Member State and enter that territory directly via a land border or inland waters is limited to 25 cigarettes on entry from certain other Member States, comply with the principles of the free movement of goods where a quantitative limit of that kind exists only in respect of a customs exclave in a single third country (Switzerland) whilst from any other third country importation of 200 cigarettes free of excise duty into that Member State is allowed?


title: Case T-186/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Schönberger v Parliament (Action for annulment — Right to petition — Petition addressed to the European Parliament — Petition declared admissible — Decision concluding the petition procedure — Measure not subject to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Schönberger v Parliament
   (Case T-186/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Right to petition - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Petition declared admissible - Decision concluding the petition procedure - Measure not subject to review - Inadmissibility)
   2013/C 114/52
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Waldherr and U. Rösslein, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 25 January 2011 which concluded the examination of the petition submitted by the applicant on 2 October 2010 (petition No 1188/2010), which had been declared admissible.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Mr Peter Schönberger to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 July 1997 in Case C-43/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/36/EEC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
C 318/2                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18 . 10 . 97
          of Justice or the Court of First Instance ruling on               provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
          the lawfulness of the Community act or on an                      93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures
          application for interim measures seeking similiar                 for the award of public supply contracts, the Italian
          interim relief at Community level.                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                            first subparagraph of Article 34 (1 ) of that directive;
4 . The second paragraph of Article 177 of the EC                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
     Treaty does not preclude a national court which has
     ordered suspension of implementation of a national
     administrative decision and referred to the Court for a           3 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     preliminary ruling a question on the validity of the
      Community act on which the decision is based from
                                                                       (') OJ C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997.
     granting leave to appeal against its decision.
(') OJ C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 September 1997
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                              in Case C-279/94: Commission of the European
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                           Communities v. Italian Republic ( l )
                           of 17 July 1997                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                       Obligation to give prior notification pursuant to Directive
        in Case C-43/97: Commission of the European                                                  83/189/EEC)
               Communities v. Italian Republic ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 318/03 )
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 93/36/EEC —
       Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                            ( 97/C 318/02 )
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                                 published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-279/94: Commission of the European
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be        Communities ( Agents : Antonio Aresu, then Paolo
           published in the European Court Reports)                    Stancanelli ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent: Umberto Leanza,
                                                                       assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri ) — application for a
                                                                       declaration that, in adopting Law No 257 of 27 March
In Case C-43/97: Commission of the European                            1992 laying down rules concerning the cessation of the
Communities ( Agent: Paolo Stancanelli ) v. Italian Republic           use of asbestos, without having notified the draft Law to
( Agent: Professor Umberto Leanza, assisted by Ivo                     the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
M. Braguglia ) — application for a declaration that, by                its obligations pursuant to the first subparagraph of
failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws,                Article 8 ( 1 ) — or, in the alternative, Article 9(1 ) — of
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                 Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying
comply with Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June                     down a procedure for the provision of information in the
1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public                   field of technical standards and regulations ( OJ L 109,
supply contracts ( OJ L 199, 9 . 8 . 1993 , p. 1 ) and by              26 . 4. 1983 , p. 8 ), as amended by Directive 88/182/EEC
failing to notify those provisions, the Italian Republic has           ( OJ L 81 , 26 . 3 . 1988 , p. 75 ) — the Court ( Sixth
failed to fulfil its obligations under the first subparagraph          Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the
of Article 34(1 ) of that Directive — the Court ( Sixth                Chamber, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm
Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the                 ( Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Chamber, J. L. Murray, G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm                         Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
( Rapporteur ) and R. Schintgen, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September 1997, in
                                                                       which it:
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment
on 17 July 1997, in which it:
                                                                        1 . declares that, in adopting Law No 257 of 27 March
                                                                             1992 laying down rules concerning the cessation of
 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                the use of asbestos, without having notified the draft
      period the laws, regulations and administrative                        Law to the Commission, the Italian Republic has


title: Case C-221/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Stuttgart (Germany)) — Krystyna Zablocka-Weyhermüller v Land Baden-Württemberg (Benefits granted to surviving spouses of victims of war — Condition of residence on the national territory — Article 18(1) EC)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 4 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Stuttgart (Germany)) — Krystyna Zablocka-Weyhermüller v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-221/07) (1)

   (Benefits granted to surviving spouses of victims of war - Condition of residence on the national territory - Article 18(1) EC)
   (2009/C 19/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Sozialgericht Stuttgart
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Krystyna Zablocka-Weyhermüller

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Stuttgart — Compatibility with Community law of national provisions limiting the exportability of benefits for surviving spouses of victims of war (Hinterbliebenenversorgung)
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 18(1) EC is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the latter refuses to pay certain benefits granted to surviving spouses of victims of war solely because they are domiciled in the territory of certain specific Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 4.8.2007.


title: Case C-674/13: Action brought on 17 December 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/26

         Action brought on 17 December 2013 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-674/13)
   2014/C 45/44
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to take all of the measures necessary to enforce immediately and effectively Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 on Measure C-36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG (1) by means of the full recovery of the aid incompatible with the internal market which was granted and the alteration to the aid system in respect of the future, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 288 TFEU and 108(2) TFEU, the principle of effectiveness, Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2) and Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the Commission decision;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By failing to take all of the measures necessary to enforce immediately and effectively Commission Decision 2012/636/EU of 25 January 2012 on Measure C-36/07 (ex NN 25/07) implemented by Germany for Deutsche Post AG by means of the full recovery of the aid incompatible with the internal market which was granted and the alteration to the aid system in respect of the future, the Federal Republic of Germany has, in the view of the Commission, failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 288 TFEU and 108(2) TFEU, the principle of effectiveness, Article 14(3) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty and Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the Commission decision.
   Germany, the Commission argues, refuses to collect data in the context of the implementation of Decision 2012/636/EU in order to make a delineation of the objectively relevant product market for parcel services for the period 2003-2012 (for the purposes of the recovery) and for the period following 2012. As a result, Germany is blocking the implementation of Decision 2012/636/EU. That decision is based on non-regulated postal services both with regard to the recovery of the unlawful and incompatible aid granted in the past and with regard to the abolition of/alteration to the pension subsidy in respect of the future. In order to be able to determine, however, which postal services those are, an analysis of the objectively relevant product market for parcel services is a conditio sine qua non.
   The refusal to carry out that analysis prevents Germany from enforcing immediately and effectively the full recovery of the aid incompatible with the internal market which has been granted and from making the alteration to the aid system in respect of the future.
   In the alternative, in the event that Germany’s legal view that it could have recourse to final decisions of the competent authorities in the implementation of Decision 2012/636/EU is correct, quod non, Germany should have taken a separate ‘B2B’ parcel service market as a starting point. It is common ground between Germany and the Commission that Deutsche Post AG has not held a market-dominant position on such a separate ‘B2B’ parcel service market at any time since 2003. The ‘B2B’ parcel service market thus comes under non-regulated postal services.
   Germany ought therefore to have classified the pension subsidy for those officials assigned to the ‘B2B’ parcel service as aid incompatible with the internal market both when calculating the amount of aid to be recovered for the period 2003-2012 and when altering the aid system for the future. It should have recovered that aid in respect of the past and abolished it in respect of the future.

      (1)  Notified under document C(2012) 184, OJ 2012 L 289, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 1998 in Case T-219/96: Y. v. European Parliament (Officials - Article 88 of the Staff Regulations - Suspension - Deductions from remuneration - Pensions rights - Damages)

text:
26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/33
Goupil, residing at Chevreuse (France), represented by                 1 January 1989, together with interest at the statutory
Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for             rate applicable in Belgium, to run from the date of the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                   first application for payment submitted by each of the
31 Grand-Rue v. the Commission of the European                         applicants respectively until payment is actually made;
Communities (Agents: Pieter Van Nuffel and Ami Barav)
Ð application pursuant to Articles 178 and 215, second             2. dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claims;
paragraph, of the EC Treaty, for compensation for damage
which the applicants purportedly suffered as a result of an        3. orders the Commission to pay the costs;
investigation conducted by the Commission, pursuant to
the 18th Commission Directive 95/34/EC of 10 July 1995             4. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay its
adapting to technical progress Annexes II, III, VI and VII             own costs.
to Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic pro-            (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997 and OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
ducts (2), into the use of psoralens in sun Ð creams and
bronzing Ð products Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and
A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which
it:
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                                of 16 July 1998
2. orders the applicants to pay the costs.                               in Case T-219/96: Y. v. European Parliament (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Article 88 of the Staff Regulations Ð
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
(2) OJ L 167, 18.7.1995, p. 19.                                    Suspension Ð Deductions from remuneration Ð Pensions
                                                                                rights Ð Damages)
                                                                                (98/C 299/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          In Case T-219/96: Y., a former official of the European
                        of 16 July 1998                            Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented during the
                                                                   written procedure by GeÂrard Collin and, at the hearing,
in Joined Cases T-202/96 and T-204/96: Andrea von                  by Claude Andries and Jacques Lombart, all of the
Löwis and Marta Alvarez-Cotera v. Commission of the                Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                  European Communities (1)                         Fiduciaire Myson SAÁRL, 30 rue de Cessange, against the
(Freelance conference interpreters Ð Lawfulness of levying         European Parliament (Agents: Hans Krück and Hugo
           Community tax on their remuneration)                    Vandenberghe) Ð application for, first, repayment of
                                                                   deductions from the salary of the applicant made between
                         (98/C 299/55)                             1 November 1993 and 19 January 1996 and, second, an
                                                                   order requiring the European Parliament to pay damages
               (Language of the case: English)                     amounting to BEF 3 million by way of provisional
                                                                   compensation for the harm arising from the infringement
In Joined Cases T-202/96 and T-204/96: Andrea von                  of the official's pension rights Ð the Court of First
Löwis and Marta Alvarez-Cotero, conference interpreters,           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
of Geneva (Switzerland), represented by Gerard van der             R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,
Wal, advocate with the right of audience before the Hoge           Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative
Raad der Nederlanden and member of the Brussels Bar,               part of which is as follows:
having an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31, Grand-Rue; the second                  1. Parliament shall repay to the applicant the deductions
applicant being supported by the Federal Republic of                   made from his remuneration between 1 November
Germany (Agent: Ernst Röder) v. the Commission of the                  1993 and 19 January 1996. That amount shall be paid
European Communities (Agent: Peter Oliver) Ð                           in addition to default interest at 8 % with effect from
application for the repayment of the Community tax                     5 March 1996;
deducted from the applicants' remuneration since
1 January 1989 Ð the Court (Third Chamber, extended                2. the remainder of the application is dismissed;
composition), composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt,
K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,          3. Parliament shall bear its own costs and one half of
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              those of the applicant. The applicant shall bear one
16 July 1998 in which it:                                              half of his own costs.
1. orders the Commission to repay to the applicants the            (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
    sums referred to as Community tax which it has
    unlawfully levied on their remuneration paid since


title: Case C-219/01 P: Appeal brought on 28 May 2001 against the decision handed down on 28 March 2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna González del Valle and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 212/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
Appeal brought on 28 May 2001 against the decision                            to Community law is a decision of a supreme court of a
handed down on 28 March 2001 by the Court of First                            Member State, such as, as in this case, the Verwaltungsger-
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)                          ichtshof?
in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna González del
Valle and the Commission of the European Communities                    2.    If the answer to Question 1 is yes:
                        (Case C-219/01 P)                                     Is the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which
                                                                              it is for the legal system of each Member State to
                                                                              determine which court or tribunal has jurisdiction to
                         (2001/C 212/31)
                                                                              hear disputes involving individual rights derived from
                                                                              Community law (see inter alia Case C-54/96 Dorsch
An appeal against the decision handed down on 28 March                        [1997] ECR I-4961) also applicable when the conduct of
2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                  an institution purportedly contrary to Community law is
ties (First Chamber) in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna                    a judgment of a supreme court of a Member State, such
González del Valle and the Commission of the European                        as, as in this case, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof?
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 28 May 2001 by Javier Reyna                     3.    If the answer to Question 2 is yes:
González del Valle, represented by J.M. Valoria de Arana,
abogado.                                                                      Does the legal interpretation given in the above-men-
                                                                              tioned judgment of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, accord-
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:                        ing to which the special length of service increment is a
                                                                              form of loyalty bonus, breach a rule of directly applicable
—     set aside the contested order in its entirety and                       Community law, in particular the prohibition on indirect
—     uphold all the claims which he brought before the Court                 discrimination in Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now
      of First Instance.                                                      Article 39 EC) and the relevant settled case-law of the
                                                                              Court of Justice?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         4.    If the answer to Question 3 is yes:
Although Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations of                       Is this rule of directly applicable Community law such as
Officials of the European Communities do not make any                         to create a subjective right for the plaintiff in the main
distinction between irregularities which render a measure void                proceedings?
and those which render it merely voidable, that does not mean
that an administrative measure which is void is always subject          5.    If the answer to Question 4 is yes?:
to the time-limits for bringing proceedings prescribed by those
articles.                                                                     Does the Court of Justice of the European Community
                                                                              have sufficient information in the content of the order
                                                                              for reference to enable it to rule itself as to whether the
                                                                              Verwaltungsgerichtshof in the circumstances of the main
                                                                              proceedings described has clearly and significantly
                                                                              exceeded the discretion available to it, or is it for the
                                                                              referring Austrian court to answer that question.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
für Zivilrechtsachen (Regional Civil Court) — by order of
that court of 7 May 2001 in the case of Dr. Gerhard
                  Köbler v Republic of Austria
                         (Case C-224/01)
                         (2001/C 212/32)
                                                                        Action brought on 6 June 2001 by the Commission of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht für
Zivilrechtsachen of 7 May 2001, which was received at the                                         (Case C-226/01)
Court Registry on 6 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Dr. Gerhard Köbler v Republic of Austria on the
following questions:                                                                              (2001/C 212/33)
1.    Is the case-law of the Court of Justice to the effect that it
      is immaterial as regards State liability for a breach of          An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
      Community law which institution of a Member State is              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      responsible for that breach (see Joined Cases C-46/93 and         6 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
      C-48/93 Factortame [1996 ECR I-1029) also applicable              ties, represented by Hans Støvlbæk, acting as Agent, with an
      when the conduct of an institution purportedly contrary           address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-141/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Rennes — France) — Doux SA, in administration v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 — Article 15(1) — Article 16 — Frozen or quick-frozen chickens — Maximum limit for water content — Obsolescence of that limit — Practical measures for checks — Counter-analysis — Regulation No 612/2009 — Article 28 — Export refunds on agricultural products — Conditions for granting — Sound and fair marketable quality — Products marketable in normal conditions)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 March 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal administratif de Rennes — France) — Doux SA, in administration v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)
   (Case C-141/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 - Article 15(1) - Article 16 - Frozen or quick-frozen chickens - Maximum limit for water content - Obsolescence of that limit - Practical measures for checks - Counter-analysis - Regulation No 612/2009 - Article 28 - Export refunds on agricultural products - Conditions for granting - Sound and fair marketable quality - Products marketable in normal conditions))
   (2017/C 144/02)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Rennes

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Doux SA, in administration

      Defendant: Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The examination of the third question did not bring to light any evidence able to affect the validity of the limits for water content in frozen chicken meat laid down in Article 15(1) and Annexes VI and VII to Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 of 16 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultrymeat, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2012 of 19 December 2012.

               2.

               Article 28(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 612/2009 of 7 July 2009 on laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 173/2011 of 23 February 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that frozen or quick-frozen chickens with a water content exceeding the limits set by Regulation No 543/2008, as amended by Implementing Regulation No 1239/2012, are not marketable in normal conditions on the territory of the European Union and do not satisfy the requirement of sound and fair marketable quality, even if they are accompanied by a health certificate issued by the competent authority.

               3.

               Since Annexes VI and VII to Regulation No 543/2008, as amended by Implementing Regulation No 1239/2012, are sufficiently precise for the purpose of carrying out the checks on frozen and quick-frozen chickens intended for export with export refunds, the fact that a Member State has not adopted practical measures, whose adoption is provided for in Article 18(2) of that regulation, does not prevent those checks from being relied on against the undertakings concerned.

               4.

               An exporter of frozen or quick-frozen chickens may, in accordance with Article 118(2) and Article 119(1), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 450/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 laying down the Community Customs Code (Modernised Customs Code) may, first, be present or represented when the goods are examined and when samples are taken and, second, may request a further examination or sampling of the goods if he considers that the results obtained by the competent authorities are not valid.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015.


title: Case F-98/15: Action brought on 3 July 2015 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/86

         Action brought on 3 July 2015 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-98/15)
   (2015/C 294/105)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 18 July 2014, which confirmed the applicant in his post as Head of Unit, in so far as that decision does not provide for retroactive recognition of the status of Head of Unit and the retroactive award of the increase in basic salary for his post (the management allowance), and the claim for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 2 of the decision of 18 July 2014, insofar as it provides that the increase in basic salary relating to the appointment of the applicant as Head of Unit will take effect only after a period of nine months;

               —

               Annul the decision of 20 March 2015, received on 24 March 2015, rejecting the applicant’s claim of 29 August 2014;

               —

               Order compensation for the material and financial damage to the applicant;

               —

               In any event, order the European Parliament to pay all the costs.


title: Case C-245/07: Action brought on 22 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Germany

text:
               7.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/17

         Action brought on 22 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Germany
   (Case C-245/07)
   (2007/C 155/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period or by not informing the Commission of the adoption of all laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to transpose Directive 2004/50/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC (2) on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC (3) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system in national law, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               The Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2004/50/EC expired on 30 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004, L 116, p. 114.

      (2)  OJ 1996, L 235, p. 6.

      (3)  OJ 2001, L 110, p. 1.


title: Case C-186/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Stanleybet International Ltd, William Hill Organisation Ltd and William Hill plc v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Politismou

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece) lodged on 20 April 2011 — Stanleybet International Ltd, William Hill Organisation Ltd and William Hill plc v Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Politismou
   (Case C-186/11)
   2011/C 186/26
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Stanleybet International Ltd, William Hill Organisation Ltd and William Hill plc

      Respondents: Ipourgos Ikonomias kai Ikonomikon and Ipourgos Politismou

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is national legislation which, in order to attain the objective of restricting the supply of games of chance, grants the exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance to a single undertaking, which has the form of a public limited company and is listed on the stock exchange, compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty where, moreover, that undertaking advertises the games of chance which it organises and it expands abroad, players participate freely and the maximum bet and winnings are set per form and not per player?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question referred is in the negative, is national legislation which, in seeking exclusively to combat criminality by exercising control over the undertakings that operate in the sector at issue so as to ensure that those activities are carried out solely within controlled systems, grants a single undertaking the exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty even where grant of the right results in parallel in unrestricted expansion of the supply in question? Or is it necessary in every case, in order for that restriction to be considered suitable for achieving the objective of combating criminality, that the expansion of supply be controlled in any event, that is to say, be only as great as is required in order to achieve that objective? If that expansion must in any event be controlled, can expansion be considered controlled from that point of view if the exclusive right in the sector in question is granted to a body with the attributes described in the first question referred? Finally, if grant of the exclusive right in question is considered to result in controlled expansion of the supply of games of chance, does its grant to just a single undertaking go beyond what is necessary, in the sense that the same objective can also be profitably served by granting that right to more than one undertaking?

               3.

               If, following the above two questions referred, it were to be held that the grant, by the national provisions relevant in the case in point, of an exclusive right to run, manage, organise and operate games of chance is not compatible with Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty: (a) is it permissible, for the purposes of those provisions of the Treaty, for the national authorities not to examine, during a transitional period necessary in order to enact rules compatible with the EC Treaty, applications to engage in the activities in question submitted by persons lawfully established in other Member States; (b) if the answer is in the affirmative, on the basis of what criteria is the duration of that transitional period determined; (c) if no transitional period is allowed, on the basis of what criteria must the national authorities rule on the applications?


title: Case C-484/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto lodged on 30 November 2009 — Manuel Carvalho Ferreira Santos v Companhia Europeia de Seguros, S.A.

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação do Porto lodged on 30 November 2009 — Manuel Carvalho Ferreira Santos v Companhia Europeia de Seguros, S.A.
   (Case C-484/09)
   2010/C 37/21
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Manuel Carvalho Ferreira Santos

      Respondent: Companhia Europeia de Seguros S.A.

      Question referred

   In a motor vehicle collision in which none of the drivers is liable for the accident on the basis of fault, and which has caused personal injury and material loss to one of the drivers (the injured party claiming compensation), is it contrary to Community law, in particular Article 3(1) of the First Directive (Directive 72/166/EEC), (1) Article 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and Article 1 of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC), (3) as those provisions have been interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, for it to be possible to apportion liability for risk (Article 506(1) and (2) of the Portuguese Civil Code) with a direct impact on the amount of compensation to be awarded to the injured party for the material and non-material loss resulting from the personal injuries suffered (since that apportionment of liability for risk will entail a commensurate reduction in the amount of compensation)?

      (1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

      (2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

      (3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).


title: Removal from the register of Case C-211/94

text:
No C 77/ 10           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  16 . 3 . 96
      Removal from the register of Case C-108/95 (')                   from the register of Case C-252/95 : Commission of the
                           ( 96/C 77/22 )                              European Communities v. French Republic .
By order of 15 November 1995 the President of the Court of             f 1 ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-108/95 : Commission of the
European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany .
(•) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .                                             Removal from the register of Case C-211 /94 ( 1 )
                                                                                96/C 77/25 )
                                                                       By order of 6 December 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
      Removal from the register of Case C-316/94 (')                   from the register of Case C-211 /94 ( reference for a
                           ( 96/C 77/23 )                              preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de
                                                                       Caen ): criminal proceedings against Dominique Luback.
By order of 1 December 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
from the register of Case C-316/94 ( reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce de
Bruxelles ): Belgian State v. Turner International Sales Ltd
and Coditel Brabant SA .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-162/95 ( )
(') OJ No C 386 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                                                  ( 96/C 77/26 )
                                                                       By order of 19 December 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C- 162/95 ( reference for a
      Removal from the register of Case C-252/95 ( )                   preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police de Nancy ):
                           ( 96/C 77/24 )                              criminal proceedings against Philippe Baumert and Jean
                                                                       Loup Dirler.
By order of 1 December 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                (') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 .
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                application, first, for the annulment of the decision of the
                     of 1 February 1996                                Commission of 6 October 1994 requiring the applicant to
in Case T-122/95 : Daniel Chabert v. Commission of the
                                                                       repay the sum of Bfr 215 354 unduly paid by way of
                                                                       household allowance and, second, an order requiring the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                           Commission to repay the sums deducted from the
(Officials — Household allowance — Recovery of undue                   applicant's salary since November 1994, together with
                              payment)                                 default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum — the Court of
                           ( 96/C 77/27 )                              First Instance ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen,
                                                                       President, and R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges;
                                                                       B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 February
                                                                       1996 , in which it:
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                       1.    Dismisses the action .
In Case T-122/95 : Daniel Chabert, an official of the                  2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Kraainem       ( Belgium ),       represented     by     Georges
Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                 (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson
SARL, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) —