title: Case C-549/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Dominant position — Abuse — Market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement — Exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates)

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 April 2012 — Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS v European Commission
   (Case C-549/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Dominant position - Abuse - Market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement - Exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates)
   2012/C 165/09
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB, Tomra Butikksystemer AS (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, J. Midthjell, advokat and A. J. Ryan, solicitor)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 9 September 2010 in Case T-155/06 Tomra Systems ASA and Others v European Commission dismissing an action for annulment of the Commission’s decision of 29 March 2006 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/38.113 — Prokent/Tomra) imposing a fine of EUR 24 million on the appellants for abusing their dominant position by engaging in practices involving exclusivity agreements, quantity commitments and loyalty rebates in order to prevent or delay the entry of other manufacturers on the market for machines for the collection of used beverage containers in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, and, in the alternative, an application for annulment or substantial reduction of the fine.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Tomra Systems ASA, Tomra Europe AS, Tomra Systems GmbH, Tomra Systems BV, Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH, Tomra Systems AB and Tomra Butikksystemer AS to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 30 May 2002 in Case C-296/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione): Prefetto Provincia di Cuneo v Silvano Carbone (Regulations (EC) Nos 519/94 and 3285/94 — Scope — Placing on the market of cordless telephones coming from third countries)

text:
13.7.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 169/9
market (OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13) and in that resulting from                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Council Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991 amending and                    Prefetto Provincia di Cuneo and Silvano Carbone, in his
consolidating Directive 64/433 to extend it to the production                capacity as sole director of the company Expo Casa Manta Srl,
and marketing of fresh meat (OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69), the Court                on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94
(Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President of the                 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports from certain
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris, Judges;                   third countries and repealing Regulations (EEC) Nos 1765/82,
P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Administrator, for                 1766/82 and 3420/83 (OJ 1994 L 67, p. 89) and Council
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May 2002, in which                 Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on the
it has ruled:                                                                common rules for imports and repealing Regulation (EC)
                                                                             No 518/94 (OJ 1994 L 349, p. 53), the Court (Second
Costs of bacteriological examinations and examinations for trichinae         Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric (Rapporteur), President
carried out in accordance with Council Directive 64/433/EEC of               of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geel-
26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade              hoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
in fresh meat, both in the version resulting from Council Directive          judgment on 30 May 2002, in which it has ruled:
89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in
intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal          Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94 of 7 March 1994 on
market and in that resulting from Council Directive 91/497/EEC of            common rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing
29 July 1991 amending and consolidating Directive 64/433 to                  Regulations (EEC) Nos 1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83 and
extend it to the production and marketing of fresh meat, are covered         Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22 December 1994 on
by the Community fee levied by the Member States for health                  common rules for imports and repealing Regulation (EC) No 518/
inspections and controls in respect of fresh meat pursuant to, first,        94 do not affect a Member State’s rules as regards the placing on the
Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing              market of products imported from third countries.
of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat and
Council Decision 88/408/EEC of 15 June 1988 on the levels of the
fees to be charged for health inspections and controls of fresh meat         (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
pursuant to Directive 85/73 and, secondly, Directive 85/73 as
amended by Council Directive 93/118/EC of 22 December 1993.
(1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  14 May 2002
                         (Second Chamber)                                    in Case C-383/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
                             30 May 2002
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
in Case C-296/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                    Directive 96/82/EC — Failure to implement within the
the Corte suprema di cassazione): Prefetto Provincia di                                               prescribed period)
                   Cuneo v Silvano Carbone (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/15)
(Regulations (EC) Nos 519/94 and 3285/94 — Scope —
Placing on the market of cordless telephones coming from
                            third countries)                                                    (Language of the case: German)
                           (2002/C 169/14)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       In Case C-383/00, Commission of the European Communities
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
                                                                             W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön): Application for a
                                                                             declaration that, by failing to take, within the prescribed
                                                                             period, all the measures necessary to comply with Council
In Case C-296/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                   Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of
EC by the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) for a preliminary              major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances


title: Case C-339/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of Cartera Mobiliaria SA SICAV v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Montreuil (France) lodged on 4 July 2011 — Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of Cartera Mobiliaria SA SICAV v Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat
   (Case C-339/11)
   2011/C 269/65
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal administratif de Montreuil

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of Cartera Mobiliaria SA SICAV

      Defendant: Ministre du budget, des comptes publics, de la fonction publique et de la réforme de l’Etat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the situation of the shareholders be taken into account together with that of undertakings for collective investments in transferable securities (UCITS)?

               2.

               If so, what are the conditions under which the withholding tax at issue may be regarded as consistent with the principle of free movement of capital?


title: Case F-47/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 February 2013 — M v EMA

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/48

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 28 February 2013 — M v EMA
   (Case F-47/12) (1)

   2013/C 114/75
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012, p. 37.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 4 July 1996 in the case of Kyritzer Stärke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Potsdam (Case C-287/96)

text:
No C 318/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26 . 10 . 96
     the fiscal horsepower value of vehicles which results in a          Action brought on 30 August 1996 by the Government of
     higher such value being conferred on certain vehicles,              the Kingdom of Denmark against the Commission of the
     which consumers are therefore deterred from buying,                                     European Communities
     where all the vehicles in the highest tax categories are                                     Case C-289/96 )
     imported vehicles standing in direct competition with
     similar vehicles sold in France which are in more                                              96/C 318/07 )
     favourable tax categories ?
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European
2 . Is Article 95 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as                  Communities was brought before the Court of Justice on
     precluding the simultaneous use of two sets of rules for            30 August 1996 by the Government of the Kingdom of
     establishing the fiscal horsepower value of vehicles                Denmark, represented by Peter Biering, Head of
     where the more unfavourable set is applied in particular            Department, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
     to vehicles imported from other Member States which                 the Danish Embassy, 4 boulevard Royal .
     French consumers are consequently deterred from
     buying, to the advantage of similar vehicles sold in
     France ?
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                        — partially annul Commission Regulation ( EC )
                                                                             No 1107/96 , of 12 June 1996 on the registration of
                                                                             geographical indications and designations of origin
                                                                             under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of Council
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 208 1 /92 ( ] ), in so far as the
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 4 July 1 996 in the                designation 'feta ' is listed in the Annex to the Regulation
 case of Kyritzer Starke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Potsdam                        under point A ' Cheeses', ' GREECE',
                           Case C-287/96
                            ( 96/C 318/06 )                             •— order the Commission to pay the costs .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
( Federal Finance Court ) of 4 July 1996 , which was received
at the Court Registry on 26 August 1996 , for a preliminary             — The registration of ' feta ' as a protected designation of
ruling in the case of Kyritzer Starke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt                   origin is contrary to the provisions of Council
( Principal Customs Office ) Potsdam on the following                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081 /92 of 14 July 1992 on the
questions :                                                                  protection of geographical indications and designations
                                                                             of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs ( 2 ). The
                                                                             designation ' feta ' does not fulfil the conditions laid
1 . Does the use prescribed in Article 10 ( 1 ) in conjunction               down in the Regulation in order to be considered a
     with Article 14 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1722/93 ( 1 )            designation of origin .
     for processed goods falling within CN code 3505 10 50
     constitute a primary requirement within the meaning of
     Article 20 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC )                        Pursuant to Article 2 ( 2 ), designation of origin means the
     No 2220/85 ( 2 ), evidence of the fulfilment of which is to             name of a region, a specific place or, in exceptional cases ,
     be produced within the period prescribed by Article 28                  a country, used to describe an agricultural product or a
     ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2220/85 , so that, in any                foodstuff originating there , the quality or characteristics
     other case , security provided pursuant to Article 22 ( 1 )             of which are due to a particular geographical
     and ( 2 ) of that regulation becomes forfeit ?                          environment with its inherent natural and human
                                                                             factors and the production, processing and preparation
                                                                             of which take place there . 'Feta ' is not, however, the
2 . If the answer to question 1 is in the negative :                         name of a region, place or country . Nor does ' feta '
                                                                             originate from Greece, as a region for protection, but
     is some other prescribed period to be inferred from the                 from all over the Balkans , and its quality or
     applicable Community legislation, within which                          characteristics cannot be due to a particular
     evidence of use is to be produced in accordance with                    geographical environment.
     Article 10 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1722/93 , so that
     the security becomes wholly or partially ( to what
     extent ?) forfeit if the evidence is not produced within the            Pursuant     to   Article     2    ( 3 ), certain traditional
     prescribed period ?                                                     geographical or non-geographical names designating an
                                                                             agricultural product or a foodstuff originating in a
                                                                             region or a specific place, the quality or characteristics of
(') OJ No L 159 , 1 . 7 . 1993 , p . 112 .
(-) OJ No L 205 , 3 . 8 . 1995 , p . 5 .
                                                                             which fulfil the above conditions, are also to be
                                                                             considered designations of origin . Under that provision
                                                                             the product's origin may only be a specific place or
                                                                             region , not an entire country .


               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/49

         (2006/C 86/89)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 74, 25.3.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 60, 11.3.2006

      OJ C 48, 25.2.2006

      OJ C 36, 11.2.2006

      OJ C 22, 28.1.2006

      OJ C 10, 14.1.2006

      OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case F-35/10: Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Adriaansen v EIB

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/54

         Action brought on 26 May 2010 — Adriaansen v EIB
   (Case F-35/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/84
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mary Lucie Adriaansen (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A.-M. Schmit, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the EIB’s decision refusing to provide the applicant with information on the value of the pension to which her former husband is entitled.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the EIB’s decision of 18 March 2010;

               —

               order the EIB to pay the costs;

               —

               order the interim execution of the judgement to be given, notwithstanding appeal and without security;

               —

               reserve to the applicant all other rights, dues, pleas in law and actions


title: Case F-68/10: Action brought on 20 August 2010 — Behnke v Commission

text:
               23.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 288/74

      Action brought on 20 August 2010 — Behnke v Commission
      (Case F-68/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/141)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Thorsten Behnke (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      Annulment of the decision to place the applicant in Performance Group II and to award him 5 promotion points for his career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008.

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Annul the decision to place the applicant in Performance Group II and to award him 5 promotion points for his career development report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2008;

                  —

                  In the alternative, declare Article 8(4) of the general implementing provisions relating to Article 43 of the Staff Regulations unlawful, in so far as it allows the Joint Committee on Evaluation and Promotions to adopt an opinion by consensus;

                  —

                  Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-62/07: Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/12

         Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-62/07)
   (2007/C 69/29)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, Agents, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use (1), as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(1) of that directive;

               —

               order Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the implementation of Directive 2005/28/EC expired on 29 January 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 91, p. 38.


title: Case C-587/15: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Lietuvos Respublikos transporto priemonių draudikų biuras v Gintaras Dockevičius, Jurgita Dockevičienė (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles — Accident occurring in 2006 between vehicles normally based in different Member States — Internal Regulations of the Council of Bureaux of national insurers of the Member States — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court — Directive 2009/103/EC — Not applicable ratione temporis — Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 2000/26/EC — Not applicable ratione materiae — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Inapplicability — Failure to implement EU law)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas — Lithuania) — Lietuvos Respublikos transporto priemonių draudikų biuras v Gintaras Dockevičius, Jurgita Dockevičienė
   (Case C-587/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Insurance against civil liability in respect of motor vehicles - Accident occurring in 2006 between vehicles normally based in different Member States - Internal Regulations of the Council of Bureaux of national insurers of the Member States - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court - Directive 2009/103/EC - Not applicable ratione temporis - Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 2000/26/EC - Not applicable ratione materiae - Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Inapplicability - Failure to implement EU law))
   (2017/C 277/07)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lietuvos Respublikos transporto priemonių draudikų biuras

      Defendants: Gintaras Dockevičius, Jurgita Dockevičienė

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court does not have jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the questions referred by the national court in respect of the interpretation of the Internal Regulations of the Council of Bureaux, adopted by the Agreement of 30 May 2002 between the national insurers’ bureaux of the Member States of the European Economic Area and other Associate States, and appended to the annex to Commission Decision 2003/564/EC of 28 July 2003 on the application of Council Directive 72/166/EEC relating to checks on insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles.

               —

               Since Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability, is not applicable ratione temporis to the dispute in the main proceedings,

               —

               since 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, as amended by Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005, 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 as amended by Directive 2005/14, and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC are not applicable ratione materiae to the present dispute, and, therefore,

               —

               since, in the absence of implementation of EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter, neither is Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applicable to the dispute,

         those directives and Article 47 of the Charter must be interpreted as not precluding, in the present case, the consequences arising from the case-law of the referring court to the effect that, for the purposes of the subrogated claim, the burden of proof relating to all of the elements establishing the civil liability of the defendants in the main proceedings for the accident which occurred on 20 July 2006 rests with the Lietuvos Respublikos transporto priemonių draudikų biuras (the Bureau of Motor Insurers of the Republic of Lithuania).

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-225/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — C. Demir v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (Request for a preliminary ruling — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — ‘Standstill’ clauses — ‘Legally resident’ )

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/9

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 7 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — C. Demir v Staatssecretaris van Justitie
   (Case C-225/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - EEC-Turkey Association Agreement - Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - ‘Standstill’ clauses - ‘Legally resident’)
   2014/C 9/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: C. Demir

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State (Netherlands) — Interpretation of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established under the EEC/Turkey Association Agreement — Prohibition on the introduction by Member States of new restrictions on access to the labour market for Turkish workers who are legally resident and employed in their respective territories — National legislation laying down a substantive and/or formal condition governing the first admission of Turkish nationals to national territory — Requirement of possession of a temporary residence permit prior to entry into the Netherlands and prior to application for a residence permit — Paragraph 85 of the Court’s judgment in Joined Cases C-317/01 (Abatay) and C-369/01 (Sahin) [2003] ECR I 12301

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, must be interpreted as meaning that where a measure taken by a host Member State seeks to define the criteria for the lawfulness of the Turkish nationals’ situation, by adopting or amending the substantive and/or procedural conditions relating to entry, residence and, where applicable, employment, of those nationals in its territory, and where those conditions constitute a new restriction of the exercise of the freedom of movement of Turkish workers, within the meaning of the ‘standstill’ clause set out in Article 13, the mere fact that the purpose of the measure is to prevent, before an application for a residence permit is made, unlawful entry and residence, does not preclude the application of that clause.

               2.

               Article 13 of Decision No 1/80, must be interpreted as meaning that holding a temporary residence permit, which is valid only pending a final decision on the right of residence, does not fall within the meaning of ‘legally resident’.

      (1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012


title: Case T-365/14: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — CBM v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare (TRECOLORE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark TRECOLORE — Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/53

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2015 — CBM v OHIM — Aeronautica Militare (TRECOLORE)
   (Case T-365/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark TRECOLORE - Earlier Community and national word and figurative marks FRECCE TRICOLORI - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 398/67)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, M. Grundmann and N. Kerger, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore (Rome, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 April 2014 (Case R 411/2013-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Aeronautica Militare — Stato Maggiore and CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case C-400/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of  11 November 2005  in B.A.S. Trucks B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 11 November 2005 in B.A.S. Trucks B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-400/05)
   (2006/C 36/37)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 11 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 16 November 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between B.A.S. Trucks B.V. and the Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following question:
   Does the fact that dumpers are, in view of their distinctive characteristics, also designed for use on paved, public roads preclude their classification under subheading 8704 10 of the Combined Nomenclature?


title: Case C-48/05: Action brought on 28 January 2005 by Yves Franchet and Daniel Byk against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/36

         Action brought on 28 January 2005 by Yves Franchet and Daniel Byk against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-48/05)
   (2005/C 93/68)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 January 2005 by Yves Franchet, residing in Nice (France), and Daniel Byk, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               order the Commission, on account of the errors committed, to make good the pecuniary and non-pecuniary harm sustained by the applicants, provisionally evaluated at EUR 1 million;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants were accused by OLAF of criminal offences relating to the administration of certain files concerning Eurostat. The applicants maintain that the measures subsequently taken by the Commission contain procedural errors and fail to respect their fundamental rights.
   In the applicants' submission, OLAF erred in forwarding the file relating to the accusations to the French and Luxembourg judicial authorities without informing the applicants or the Commission that it was doing so, breached the principle of confidentiality, disregarded the presumption of innocence, the principle of good administration and Article 9 of Regulation No 1073/1999, (1) the right to be heard and the obligation to state reasons. The applicants further rely on OLAF's opposition to access to certain documents and, last, claim that OLAF failed to deal with the cases within a reasonable time and infringed Articles 6 and 11 of Regulation No 1973/1999.
   The applicants also claim that the Commission erred in not ensuring confidentiality and in failing to have regard for fundamental rights, in particular the rights of defence and the principle of the presumption of innocence. The applicants further criticise the Commission for having adopted an adversarial approach and for having duplicated the proceedings, for having breached the principle of good administration and, last, for having refused access to the OLAF documents in its possession.
   The applicants claim that those errors caused them non-pecuniary and pecuniary harm.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136, p. 1).


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 2003 in Case T-303/01: Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro v Commission of the European Communities (Project for the construction of the Madrid-Barcelona-French border high-speed line — Financial assistance from the Cohesion Fund — Expected impact of the route on the environs of the Soto de Aguilar protected area — Commission refusal to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations — Action for annulment — Natural and legal persons — Act directly affecting them — Inadmissibility)

text:
7.6.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 135/31
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
                                                                                INSTANCE
                         of 10 March 2003                                                              of 26 March 2003
                                                                             in Case T-85/03 R: Government of the Cayman Islands v
in Case T-303/01: Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro v                                     Commission of the European Communities
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             (Procedure for interim relief — Overseas countries and
                                                                             territories — Request for establishment of a partnership
(Project for the construction of the Madrid-Barcelona-French                 working party — Alleged decision to refuse — Partial
border high-speed line — Financial assistance from the                       inadmissibility of heads of relief sought — Admissibility of
Cohesion Fund — Expected impact of the route on the                                        main action — Urgency — Absence)
environs of the Soto de Aguilar protected area — Com-
mission refusal to initiate proceedings for failure to fulfil
obligations — Action for annulment — Natural and legal                                                  (2003/C 135/51)
   persons — Act directly affecting them — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                           (2003/C 135/50)
                                                                             In Case T-85/03 R: Government of the Cayman Islands,
                                                                             represented by E. Sharpston, QC, against Commission of the
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                          European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal and B. Eggers) —
                                                                             application for interim measures in respect of the ongoing
                                                                             legislative consideration of the Commission’s ‘Proposal for a
                                                                             Council directive to ensure effective taxation of savings income
                                                                             in the form of interest payments within the Community’
                                                                             (COM/2001/0400 final, OJ 2001 C 270 E, p. 259), submitted
In Case T-303/01: Ayuntamiento de Osera de Ebro, established                 on 18 July 2001 and based on Article 94 EC — the President
in Zaragoza (Spain), represented by J. Ariño Barcelona, lawyer,              of the Court of First Instance has made an order on 26 March
against Commission of the European Communities (Agent:                       2003, the operative part of which is as follows:
G. Valero Jordana), supported by Kingdom of Spain (Agent:
R. Silva de Lapuerta) — application for annulment of the
decision of the Commission of 13 July 2001 refusing to                       1.    The application is dismissed;
initiate proceedings for a finding of failure to fulfil obligations
under Article 226 EC against the Kingdom of Spain and                        2.    Costs are reserved.
seeking the adoption of measures intended to prevent the
Spanish authorities from implementing their decision of
17 March 1999 concerning the route to be followed by the
Madrid-Barcelona-French border high-speed line — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood,
President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 10 March 2003, the operative part of which
is as follows:                                                               Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Osotspa Co., Ltd.
                                                                             against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
1.     The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                                (Case T-33/03)
2.     The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred
       by the Commission.                                                                               (2003/C 135/52)
3.     The Kingdom of Spain shall bear its own costs.                        (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2)
                                                                             of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
                                                                                submitted: German)
( 1) OJ 2002 C 44.
                                                                             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


title: Case T-244/99: Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Sadam Abruzzo Spa against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 20/24               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       22.1.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               Pleas in law and main arguments
(a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the                   The applicant company seeks annulment of Commission
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering           Decision C (1999) 1363 def. of 11 May 1999 on economic
    Germany;                                                              and financial aid to two sugar manufacturing plants which
                                                                          process all the sugar beet from four Italian regions (Tuscany,
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                Umbria, Lazio and Abruzzo).
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           In the contested decision, the Commission found that:
This case corresponds to Case T-210/99. The applicant claims              — all the financial aid investigated constituted State aid;
that it was not it but the service station operators, who carry
on business autonomously and independently from Esso, that
applied for and received the aid; consequently, it cannot be              — most of the aid was incompatible with the common
required to repay the aid. In its view, the decision is based on               market, and therefore to be refunded.
an incomplete and incorrect assessment of the facts and also
infringes Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty by introducing the
concept of the de facto recipient of the aid.
                                                                          According to the applicant, in reaching that conclusion the
                                                                          Commission disregarded the arguments, information and
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.                                        figures submitted by the Italian authorities during the adminis-
                                                                          trative procedure. It thus reached a decision which, apart from
                                                                          being insufficiently reasoned, discloses manifest errors of
                                                                          assessment in respect of fundamental questions of law and fact
                                                                          in relation, inter alia, to the relevant Community legislation;
                                                                          the scope and effects of the legislation and measures adopted
                                                                          by the Italian authorities; the content, scope and effects of
                                                                          the legal and economic relationships between the parties
                                                                          concerned; the scope and effects of the various aid packages
                                                                          investigated; the identification of the recipients of the so-called
Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Sadam Abruzzo                        State aid; and the compatibility of that aid with the principles
Spa against the Commission of the European Communi-                       and rules applicable in such cases.
                               ties
                        (Case T-244/99)                                   In particular, it is alleged that the Commission disregarded
                                                                          inter alia the following aspects:
                         (2000/C 20/49)
                                                                          — the protection of the agricultural and industrial production
                                                                               concerned was in this case guaranteed by the relevant
                   (Language of the case: Italian)                             Community rules which allowed Italy considerable latitude
                                                                               to grant production aid;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                — the aid given to the two manufacturing plants was entirely
European Communities on 18 October 1999 by Sadam Abruz-                        consistent with the objectives of the national plan for the
zo Spa, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele                        sector in question, which had been approved earlier by the
Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Alberto Maffei Alberti,                        Commission;
Gualtiero Pittalis and Alessandra Franchi, of the Bologna Bar,
with an address for service in Brussels at 36 Place du Grand
Sablon.                                                                   — the difficulties encountered over a certain period by the
                                                                               plants concerned depended on external factors, which did
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    not in the least diminish their economic potential or their
                                                                               productivity prospects;
— annul (wholly or in part) the Commission’s decision of
    11 May 1999 concerning State aid granted by Italy to the              — the plants in question are located in assisted regions and,
    sugar sector (C (1999) 1363 def.);                                         as confirmed by the national plan for the sector, are
                                                                               essential to ensure a market outlet for products from two
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                          regions of fundamental importance for the cultivation of
    pay the costs.                                                             sugar beet;
 ---pagebreak--- 22.1.2000             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 20/25
— the contested decision threatens now, at a distance of                  Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Tirrenia di
    years, to undermine the balance achieved and to recreate              Navigazione SpA and Others against Commission of the
    the dangers previously pre-empted by the action taken by                                  European Communities
    the Italian authorities.
                                                                                (Case T-246/99)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Sadam Casti-                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
glionese Spa against the Commission of the European                       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                          Communities                                     19 October 1999 by Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA and Others,
                                                                          represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele Roberti, of
                                                                          the Naples Bar, and of 36 Place du Grand Sablon, Brussels.
                        (Case T-245/99)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                         (2000/C 20/50)
                                                                          — annul the Commission decision of 6 August 1999;
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 October 1999 by Sadam Casti-                   Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
glionese Spa, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian
Michele Roberti, of the Naples Bar, and Alberto Maffei Alberti,
Gualtiero Pittalis and Alessandra Franchi, of the Bologna Bar,            These proceedings seek annulment of the Commission decision
with an address for service in Brussels at 36 Place du Grand              of 6 August 1999 whereby the Commission initiated a pro-
Sablon.                                                                   cedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty regarding State aid
                                                                          allegedly granted by Italy to the applicant companies. The aid
                                                                          objected to in the contested decision is said to derive from
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               ‘agreements between undertaking in the Tirrenia Group and
                                                                          the Italian State’ and to consist essentially of the introduction
                                                                          of public service obligations (PSOs) subsidised on certain
— annul (wholly or in part) the Commission’s decision of                  routes and of related financial mechanisms.
    11 May 1999 concerning State aid granted by Italy to the
    sugar sector (C (1999) 1363 def.);
                                                                          The applicants, which are part of the Tirrenia Group, observe
                                                                          that, under the domestic Italian rules, they are subject to
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                     specific restrictions regarding the services to be provided
    pay the costs.
                                                                          and the procedures for providing them. In particular, those
                                                                          restrictions relate to three basic parameters: the routes to be
                                                                          followed, the frequencies/timetables for each route and the
                                                                          type of vessels to be used on individual routes.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          In support of their claims, the applicants submit that:
The applicant relies on the pleas in law and arguments put
forward in Case T-244/99 Sadam Abruzzo v Commission.
                                                                          — The basis of the PSOs at issue reflects a legitimate choice
                                                                              made by the Italian authorities, covered by Article 4(3)
                                                                              of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 applying the
                                                                              principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
                                                                              transport within Member States (maritime cabotage).


title: Case F-90/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 May 2011 — Florentiny v Parliament

text:
               6.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 232/43

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 20 May 2011 — Florentiny v Parliament
   (Case F-90/10) (1)

   2011/C 232/78
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 19.2.11, p. 36.


title: Case C-269/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC — Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement — Tax legislation — Transfer abroad of a taxpayer’s residence — Obligation to include any income not yet charged to tax in the tax base for the preceding tax year — Loss of the advantage to be gained by deferring the tax debt)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 July 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-269/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC - Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement - Tax legislation - Transfer abroad of a taxpayer’s residence - Obligation to include any income not yet charged to tax in the tax base for the preceding tax year - Loss of the advantage to be gained by deferring the tax debt)
   2012/C 287/02
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and F. Jimeno Fernández, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma and C. Blaschke, and by K. Petersen, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and M. de Ree, Agents), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 19 EC, 38 EC and 43 EC and of Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement — Taxpayers transferring their residence abroad — Obligation to include all income not yet charged to tax in the tax base for the last tax year during which they were considered to be resident taxpayers

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC, by adopting and maintaining in Article 14(3) of Law 35/2006 on personal income tax and amending in part the laws on the taxation of corporations, of the income of non-residents and of wealth (Ley 35/2006 del Impuesto sobre la Renta de las Personas Físicas y de modificación parcial de las leyes de los Impuestos sobre Sociedades, sobre la Renta de no residentes y sobre el Patrimonio) of 28 November 2006, a provision under which taxpayers who transfer their residence to another Member State must include, in the tax base for the last tax year in which they were treated as resident taxpayers, any income not yet charged to tax;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay three-quarters of the costs, and the European Commission to pay the remaining quarter;

               4.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Portuguese Republic to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that court of 16 July 1997 in the case of Eridania SpA against Azienda Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj (Case C-289/97)

text:
27 . 9 . 97              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 295/23
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Ufficio del                     Is subheading 'ex 0207 41 11 ' in sector 8 of the Annex to
Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that court of                       Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3846/87 of 17 De
16 July 1997 in the case of Eridania SpA against Azienda                  cember 1987 establishing an agricultural product
             Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj                        nomenclature for export refunds ( OJ L 366, 24. 12 . 1987,
                                                                          p. 1 ), valid for the period from 21 June 1988 to
                          ( Case C-289/97 )
                                                                          16 January 1989, to be interpreted as meaning that the
                             ( 97/C 295/38 )                              term 'quarters' ( of chicken) also includes cuts of poultry
                                                                          not yet wholly separated from each other ('posteriori') as
                                                                          described more precisely in the grounds of this order ( J )?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    ( 1 ) Divided at right angles to the backbone, not longitudinally.
European Communities by order of the Ufficio del Giudice
di Pace di Genova (Magistrate's Court, Genoa ), of 16 July
1997, received at the Court Registry on 4 August 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Eridania SpA
against Azienda Agricola San Luca di Rumagnoli Viannj
on the following questions :
                                                                          Appeal brought on 5 August by Maria Grazia Colombo
                                                                          Lunghi against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1997 by
1 . Is Regulation (EC ) No 1580/96 (») of 30 July 1996,                   the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      published in the Official Journal of the European                   European Communities in Case T- 196/95 between Maria
      Communities on 16 August 1996, and in particular                    Grazia Colombo Lunghi and the Commission of the
      Article 1 ( f) thereof, valid, above all having regard to                                  European Communities
      the arguments set out in paragraph 3 of the section of
      this order entitled ' Law'?                                                                    ( Case C-291/97 P)
                                                                                97/C 295/40 )
2. If the answer to the first question is 'Yes', is
      Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 ( 2 ) of 30 June 1981 ,               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 June 1997
      published in the Official Journal of the European                   by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       Communities on 1 July 1981 , and in particular,                    European Communities in Case T- 196/95 between Maria
      Articles 3 ( 1 ), 5 ( 3 ) and 6 (2 ) thereof as subsequently         Grazia Colombo Lunghi and the Commission of the
      amended, valid, and in consequence is Regulation ( EC )             European Communities was brought before the Court of
      No 1580/96 of 30 July 1996 valid, with particular                   Justice of the European Communities on 5 August 1997
       reference to Article 1 ( f), especially in the light of the         by Maria Grazia Colombo Lunghi, represented by Vincent
       arguments set out in paragraph 4 of the section of this             Lurquin, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
       order entitled ' Law '?
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
                                                                           Fort Rheinsheim .
(') OJ L 206 , 16 . 8 . 1996 , p . 9 .
( 2 ) OJ L 177, 1 . 7. 1981 , p . 4 .
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          — declare the appeal admissible and well-founded,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                — set aside the judgment appealed against,
Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 26 June 1997 in
the case of Georg Bruner, trading as Georg Bruner v.
                   Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas                              — declare the original application admissible and well
                                                                                founded .
                           ( Case C-290/97 )
                              ( 97/C 295/39 )
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    — Irregularity         of    the   procedure     establishing     the
European Communities by an order of the Seventh Senate                           composition of the Invalidity Committee: the Court of
of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court ) of 26 June                      First Instance wrongly considered that the procedure
 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on                               whereby the President of the Court of Justice appoints,
4 August 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                           on his own initiative, a doctor to represent the staff
 Georg Bruner, trading as Georg Bruner v. Hauptzollamt                           member on the Invalidity Committee should not
 Hamburg-Jonas on the following question:                                        involve the consultation of that staff member. Whilst it


title: Case T-251/11: Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014  — Austria v Commission (State aid — Electricity — Aid for energy-intensive businesses — Austrian Green Electricity Act — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market — Concept of State aid — State resources — State imputability — Selective nature — General Block Exemption Regulation — Misuse of power — Equal treatment)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 11 December 2014 — Austria v Commission
   (Case T-251/11) (1)

   ((State aid - Electricity - Aid for energy-intensive businesses - Austrian Green Electricity Act - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market - Concept of State aid - State resources - State imputability - Selective nature - General Block Exemption Regulation - Misuse of power - Equal treatment))
   (2015/C 046/50)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, J. Bauer, acting as Agents, assisted by T. Rabl, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: V. Kreuschitz and T. Maxian Rusche, then by T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by: S. Behzadi-Spencer and S. Ossowski, then by S. Behzadi-Spencer and L. Christie, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2011/528/EU of 8 March 2011 on State Aid C-24/09 (ex N 446/08) — State aid for energy-intensive businesses under the Green Electricity Act in Austria (OJ 2011 L 235, p. 42).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2002 in Case T-89/01: Claude Willeme v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Obligations under the Staff Regulations — Declaration of spouse's occupation — Personal interest likely to compromise independence — Obligation relating to personal dignity — Obligation to act in the interest of the Communities — Duty of loyalty — Disciplinary proceedings — Non-contractual liability — Assessment of non-material damage)

text:
7.12.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 305/21
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Verryck, residing in Brussels, Françoise Leroy, residing in
                                                                           Villers-la-Ville (Belgium), Petra Schlueter, residing in Overijse
                      of 25 September 2002                                 (Belgium), Lucia Talluto, residing in Brussels, Sandrine Tauber,
                                                                           residing in Brussels, Jacqueline White, residing in Brussels,
                                                                           Anne-Christine Ranglaret-Clément, residing in Brussels, Francy
in Case T-316/00: Viking-Umwelttechnik GmbH v Office                       Arnalsteen, residing in Genval (Belgium), Georges Anagnostar-
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade, Marks
                                                                           as, residing in Brussels, Jean-Pierre Dupriez, residing in Berloz
                     and Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)
                                                                           (Belgium), François Jurquet, residing in Brussels, Christian Eloy,
                                                                           residing in Waterloo (Belgium), Jean-Pierre Kanyinda, residing
(Community trade mark — Colours (green and grey) —                         in Zellik (Belgium), Bernard Lion, residing in Brussels, Renato
Absolute ground for refusal — Distinctive character —                      Stella, residing in Brussels, Gérard Van Neylen, residing in
          Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                     Brussels, represented initially by A. Evrard and A. Colson, then
                                                                           by A. Colson and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, lawyers, with an
                          (2002/C 305/44)                                  address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities (Agents: initially, E. Tserepa
                   (Language of the case: German)                          Lacombe and D. Martin; then, D. Martin and F. Clotuche-
                                                                           Duvieusart) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
                                                                           decision to refuse to appoint the applicants as established
                                                                           officials or to offer them contracts as members of the
In Case T-316/00, Viking-Umwelttechnik GmbH, established                   temporary staff for an indefinite term and for compensation
in Kufstein (Austria), represented by S. Völker, lawyer, v Office          of the damage suffered as a result of that decision — the Court
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                  of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jaeger,
Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl, E. Joly and                    President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; Registrar: D. Chris-
S. Bonne): Action brought against the decision of the First                tensen, Administrator, gave a judgment on 26 September
Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the                     2002, in which it:
Internal Market (Trade, Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2000
(Case R 558/1999-1) refusing registration of a juxtaposition               1.     Dismissed the action
of the colours green and grey as a Community trade mark, the
Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                     2.     Ordered each of the parties to pay his or her own costs.
M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Pling-
ers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                           (1 ) OJ No C 372 of 23 December 2000.
25 September 2002, in which it:
1.     Dismisses the action;
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.
                                                                                of 11 September 2002
                                                                           in Case T-89/01: Claude Willeme v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Obligations under the Staff Regulations —
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Declaration of spouse’s occupation — Personal interest
                                                                           likely to compromise independence — Obligation relating to
                      of 26 September 2002                                 personal dignity — Obligation to act in the interest of the
                                                                           Communities — Duty of loyalty — Disciplinary proceedings
in Case T-319/00: Chantal Borremans and Others v                           — Non-contractual liability — Assessment of non-material
        Commission of the European Communities ( 1)                                                      damage)
(Officials — Former agents of the European Association for                                           (2002/C 305/46)
Cooperation — Refusal to appoint as established officials —
           Action for annulment and compensation)                                              (Language of the case: French)
                          (2002/C 305/45)
                                                                           In Case T-89/01: Claude Willeme, an official of the Com-
                    (Language of the case: French)                         mission of the European Communities, residing in Brussels,
                                                                           represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Com-
                                                                           mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and
In Case T-319/00: Chantal Borremans, residing in Brussels,                 D. Waelbroeck) — application for first, annulment of the
Annick Duez, residing in Baudour (Belgium), Ariane Dutrieux-               decision of 19 June 2000 downgrading the applicant from
 ---pagebreak--- C 305/22               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           7.12.2002
Grade A 3 to Grade A 6 and, secondly, a claim for compen-                  1.     Annuls the decision of the selection board, contained in the
sation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a                    letter of 13 July 2000, not to enter the applicant’s name on the
result of that decision — the Court of First Instance (Second                     reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/
Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-                        1999;
rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 11 September 2002, in which it:                                2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
1.     annuls the decision of the Commission of 19 June 2000
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
       downgrading the applicant from Grade A 3 to Grade A 6;
2.     orders the Commission to pay to the applicant EUR 1 by way
       of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him;
3.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ No C 227 of 11.8.2001.
                                                                                of 24 September 2002
                                                                           in Case T-102/01: Orlando Pérez-Díaz v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list —
                                                                              Linguistic competence of members of the selection board)
                      of 24 September 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 305/48)
in Case T-92/01: Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission of                                           (Language of the case: French)
                  the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the
temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list —                   In Case T-102/01: Orlando Pérez-Díaz, residing in Brussels,
Composition of the selection board — Equality of treatment)                represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, v Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and
                                                                           H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the
                         (2002/C 305/47)                                   decision of the selection board, contained in a letter of 14 July
                                                                           2000, refusing to enter the applicant’s name on the reserve list
                                                                           of temporary agents resulting from selection procedure COM/
                    (Language of the case: French)                         R/A/01/1999 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
                                                                           composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and N.J. Forwood and
                                                                           H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 2002, in
                                                                           which it:
In Case T-92/01: Marie-Claude Girardot, a member of the
temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and                 1.     Annuls the decision of the selection board, contained in the
V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                     letter of 14 July 2000, not to enter the applicant’s name on the
v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                                 reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/
F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — appli-                           1999;
cation for annulment of the decision of the selection board,
contained in a letter of 13 July 2000, refusing to enter the               2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
applicant’s name on the reserve list of temporary agents
resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 —
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:                  (1 ) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
B. Vesterdorf, President, and N. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 24 September 2002, in which it:


title: Action brought on 22 November 1996 by Glasoltherm Sàrl against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-388/96)

text:
8 . 2 . 97            ! EN |                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 40/ 11
Justice of the European Communities on 28 November                     with regard to the validity, interpretation or application of
1996 by Dreyfus & Cie, represented by R. Saint-Esteben,                the present contract', which , according to Article 14
with an address for service in Euxembourg at the                       thereof, ' shall be governed by French law '.
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand Rue.
                                                                       (') Two buildings on Orsay, rented for multiple residential
The appellant claims that the Court should set aside in                    occupation , comprising 15 four-room units of 80 m2, each
part the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                        fitted with a Glasoltherm thermoelectric micro-heating plant
24 September 1996 in so far as it declared inadmissible                    enabling tests to be carried out on two Glasoltherm heat
the action for annulment brought by Louis Dreyfus                          pump designs which have functioned for 10 years in rhe
                                                                           context of a Z.A.I , demonstration lease in Courtaboeuf les
against the decision of the Commission of 1 April 1993 .                   LJlis .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— Infringement of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of
      the EC Treaty: the judgment is too restrictive
      inasmuch as it considers that, in the absence of a legal         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Rechtbank van
      relationship with the Commission , Louis Dreyfus                 Eerste Aanleg te Brussel by judgment of that court of
      cannot be directly concerned, since neither the validity         26 November 1996 in the case of Lease Plan Luxembourg
      nor the terms of the contract are affected . The legal                                  SA v. Belgian State
      and substantive situation of the applicant was in fact
                                                                                ( Case C-390/96 )
      directly affected by the contested decision : the contract
      was already concluded between Louis Dreyfus and                                             ( 97/C 40/23 )
      Exportkhleb and payment of the price was to be by
      means of the Community loan . It was because of the              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      contract and its terms ( and not because of a ' decision '       European Communities by a judgment of the Rechtbank
      taken by the Russians ) that Louis Dreyfus could no              van Eerste Aanleg te Brussel ( Court of First Instance ,
      longer be paid at the new price, since the contract and          Brussels ) of 26 November 1996 , which was received at the
      the rider inextricably linked payment to the                     Court Registry on 2 December 1996 , for a preliminary
       Community loan .                                                ruling in the case of Lease Plan Luxembourg SA v. Belgian
                                                                       State on the following questions :
— Contradictory grounds .
                                                                       1 . Must the term ' fixed establishment' in Article 9 ( 1 ) of
                                                                            the Sixth VAT Directive ( Directive 77/388/EEC ) (') be
                                                                            interpreted as meaning that an undertaking from one
                                                                            Member State which hires or leases out a number of
                                                                            cars to customers established in another Member State
Action brought on 22 November 1996 by Glasoltherm                           has ipso facto, by virtue of that hiring, a fixed
Sari against the Commission of the European                                 establishment in that other Member State ?
                            Communities
                         ( Case C-388/96 )                             2 . If the answer to the preceding question is in the
                                                                            affirmative : must Article 9 ( 1 ) of the Sixth VAT
                            ( 97/C 40/22 )                                  Directive be interpreted as meaning that services
                                                                            consisting in the leasing out of vehicles can be
An action against the Commission of the European                            regarded as being supplied from a fixed establishment
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                      in Belgium in the case where the supplier of the
the European Communities on 22 November 1996 by                             services has its established place of business in
Glasoltherm Sari, represented by Mr Penciolelli , lawyer, of                Luxembourg and where almost all contracts are
18 Avenue de la Liberation , 91130 Ris Orangis ( France ).                  negotiated and concluded from this place of
                                                                            establishment in Luxembourg with customers
Glasoltherm Sari claims that the Court should order the                     established in Luxembourg and only a limited number
Commission of the European Communities to support by                        of vehicles ( approximately ten cars out of a fleet of
all means, including the provision of financial assistance,                 almost 1 000 vehicles ) are purchased in Belgium and
over a period of 10 years from the date of entry into                       maintained or repaired within Belgium ?
industrial service of the two demonstration operations
referred to ('), the action taken by a commercial company              3 . Must Articles 6 and 59 of the EEC Treaty be
formed by Glasoltherm Sari to market Glasoltherm                             interpreted as meaning that foreign taxable persons,
thermoelectric micro-heating technology in the European                     who receive goods or services in Belgium and
Community.                                                                   subseqently request VAT refunds in respect of such
                                                                            goods or services pursuant to the Eighth VAT
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                          Directive , cannot, in the event of late reimbursement,
                                                                             be granted a lower rate of interest, which , moreover,
The      action  is  founded     on  contract  No    EE   252/ 84            begins to accrue only from the moment at which such
concluded between the parties on 28 October 1986 .                           foreign taxable persons institute default proceedings
According to Article 13 of that contract, 'the contracting                   against the Belgian State, whereas in the event of late
parties agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of                  reimbursement to Belgian taxable persons, the latter
Justice of the European Communities all disputes arising                     are granted a higher rate of interest which ,


title: Case T-313/01: Action brought on 17 December 2001 by R against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 44/28                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       16.2.2002
The applicants submit further that the Council and Com-                     —     annul the measure of 22 May 2001 adversely affecting the
mission have not examined the reasons why the Taliban                             applicant and the implied rejection of her administrative
Sanctions Committee included the applicants in its list. Nor                      complaint;
were the applicants given any opportunity to apprise them-
selves of and refute the allegations on which the decision to               —     require the defendant to pay to the applicant 85 % of the
include them in Annex I was based. The applicants have                            cost of surgery on her of BEF 200 234;
thus had onerous sanctions imposed on them without any
opportunity to defend themselves. The fundamental legal                     —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
principle of the right to a fair and equitable hearing has thus
been disregarded.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Moreover, Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 is marred by
significant flaws, which points clearly to the need to consider
each individual case separately. At the same time, there are                1.    The applicant challenges the adverse decision of the
good reasons to doubt whether it is appropriate to impose                         Claims Office of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of
sanctions on the applicants.                                                      22 May 2001 relating to meeting the costs of operating
                                                                                on the applicant.
(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2199/2001 of 12 November
    2001 amending, for the fourth time, Council Regulation (EC)             2.    (a)   Infringement of Articles 24 and 72 of the Staff
    No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services                    Regulations, and of the Rules on sickness insurance
    to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the                      for officials of the European Communities (in par-
    freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the                     ticular of Article 1 and Annexes I and II).
    Taliban of Afghanistan and repealing Regulation (EC)
    No 337/2000 (OJ 2001 L 295, p. 16).                                           (b) Infringment of the principles of good adminstration
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of 6 March 2001 pro-                            and of transparency.
    hibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan,
    strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and
    other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan,           (c)   Manifest error as to the facts and clear error of
    and repealing Regulation (EC) No 337/2000 (OJ 2001 L 67, p. 1).                     assessment.
                                                                                (d) Inadequate statement of grounds.
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by R against the
         Commission of the European Communities                             Action brought on 27 December 2001 by José Marı́a Pujals
                                                                            Gomis against Commission of the European Communities
                          (Case T-313/01)
                                                                                (Case T-332/01)
                           (2002/C 44/48)
                                                                                (2002/C 44/49)
                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by R, a                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Commission official, represented by K. Tagaras, Lawyer, with                European Communities on 27 December 2001 by José
an address for service in Athens.                                           Marı́a Pujals Gomis, residing in Cerdanyola del Vallés (Spain),
                                                                            represented by Javier Pujals Gomis, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     grant the application in its entirety and in respect of all           —     Annul the decision of the selection board for Competition
      its claims;                                                                 COM/B/1/0 of 28 September 2001;