title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 February 1996 in Joined Cases C-296/93 and C-307/93: French Republic v. Commission of the European Communities and Ireland v. Commission of the European Communities (Common organization of the market in beef and veal - Conditions for intervention)

text:
 No C 133 /6           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    4 . 5 . 96
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Michel
                        (Third Chamber )                              Nolin and Ben Smulders ), supported by the Kingdom of the
                                                                      Netherlands ( Agents : Jaap de Zwaan and Ton Heukels ) —
                      of 15 February 1996                             application for annulment of the Commission's decision
 in Case C-53/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                 pursuant to Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty , addressed on
 by the Tribunal du Travail, Tournai ): Inasti v. Hans                29 December 1992 to other Member States and other
                             Kemmler ( 1 )                            parties concerned, regarding a preferential tariff system
  (Freedom of establishment — Social security for                     applied in the Netherlands for supplies of natural gas to
    self-employed persons working in two Member States)               Dutch nitrate fertilizer producers ( OJ No C 344 , 1992 , p . 4 )
                                                                      — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O.
                            96/C 133/ 10
                                                                      Edward, President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
                                                                      Almeida , C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L. Sevón ,
                 (Language of tbe case: French)                      Judges ; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-
                                                                      Hubeau , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
 (Provisional translation ; the definitive translation will be        judgment on 29 February 1996 , in which it:
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       1 , dismisses the application;
 In Case C-53/95 — reference by the Tribunal du Travail
 ( Labour Tribunal ), Tournai , for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Inasti                  2 , orders the applicant to pay the costs;
 ( Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs
Indépendants — National Social Insurance Institution
                                                                      3,   orders the intervener to bear its own costs .
for Self-employed Persons ) and Hans Kemmler, on the
interpretation of Articles 48 , 51 , 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty
— the Court ( Third Chamber ), composed of J. P. Puissochet           (') OJ No C 88 , 30 . 3 . 1993 .
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de
Almeida and C. Gulmann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate-General ; R. Grass , Registrar, gave a judgment
on 15 February 19 96 , the operative part of which is as
follows :
Article 52 of the EC Treaty precludes a Member State from
requiring contributions to be made to the social security                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
scheme for self-employed persons by persons already                                            ( Fifth Chamber )
working as self-employed persons in another Member State
where they have their habitual residence and are affiliated to                             of 29 February 1996
a social security scheme, that obligation affording them no          in Joined Cases C-296/93 and C-307/93 : French Republic
additional social security cover.                                    v. Commission of the European Communities and Ireland
                                                                            v. Commission of the European Communities (')
(') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .                                     (Common organization of the market in beef and veal —
                                                                                Conditions for intervention)
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/ 12 )
                                                                      (Languages of the cases: C-296/93 : French; C-307/93 :
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                English)
                        ( Fifth Chamber )
                     of 29 February 1996                              (Provisional translation : the definitive translation will be
in Case C-56/93 : Kingdom of Belgium v. Commission of the                      published in the European Court Reports)
                   European Communities ( 1 )
(State aid — Preferential tariffsystem for supplies ofnatural        In Joined Cases C-296/93 and C-307/93 : French Republic
            gas to Dutch nitrate fertilizer producers)               ( Agents : Philippe Pouzoulet, Catherine de Salins and
                          ( 961C 133/ 11 )                           Jean-Louis Falconi ) v . Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities ( Agents : Gérard Rozet and Christopher
                 (Language of the case: French)                      Docksey ), supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                     and Northern Ireland ( Agent: John D. Colahan, assisted by :
                                                                     Eleanor Sharpston, Barrister ) and Ireland ( Agent : Michael
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         A. Buckley, assisted by : James O'Reilly SC, and Richard
          published in the European Court Reports)                   Law Nesbitt, Barrister-at-Law ) v . Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities                ( Agents : Gérard Rozet,
In Case C-56/93 : Kingdom of Belgium ( Agent : Jan                   Christopher Docksey and Hans Gerald Crossland ),
Devadder, assisted by Claude A. Gonthier, Avocat ) v .               supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
 ---pagebreak--- 4 . 5 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133 /7
Northern Ireland ( Agent: John D. Colahan, assisted by                 turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :
Eleanor Sharpston, Barrister ), applications for the                   uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p . 1 ) — the
annulment of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 685/93 of                Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward,
24 March 1993 amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 859/89                    President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho
laying down detailed rules for the application of general and          de Almeida , C. Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), and L. Sevon,
special intervention measures in the beef and veal sector ( OJ         Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; D. Louterman
No L 73 , 1993 , p . 9 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),                Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
composed of D. A. O. Edward , President of the Chamber,                given a judgment on 29 February 1996 , in which it
J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ),           rules :
C. Gulmann and L. Sevôn, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate-General ; D. Louterman-Hubeau , Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                   Article 4 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
29 February 1996 , in which it:                                        17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
                                                                       Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
                                                                       system of value added tax : uniform basis ofassessment must
1 , dismisses the applications;                                        be interpreted as meaning that where the tax authority has
                                                                       accepted that a company which has declared an intention to
                                                                       commence an economic activity giving rise to taxable
2 , order the French Republic and Ireland to pay the costs,            transactions has the status of a taxable person for the
      including those of the interim proceedings;                      purposes of VAT, the commissioning ofa profitability study
                                                                       in respect of the envisaged activity may be regarded as an
                                                                       economic activity within the meaning of that Article, even if
3 , orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                     the purpose of that study is to investigate to what degree the
      Northern Ireland to bear its own costs .                         activity envisaged is profitable, and that except in cases of
                                                                       fraud or abuse, the status of taxable person for the purpose
                                                                       of VAT may not be withdrawn from that company
(') OJ No C 184 , 7 . 7 . 1993 .
     OJ No C 203 , 27 . 7 . 1993 .                                     retroactively where, in view ofthe results ofthat study, it has
                                                                       been decided not to move to the operational phase, but to
                                                                       put the company into liquidation with the result that the
                                                                       economic activity envisaged has not given rise to taxable
                                                                       transactions .
                                                                       C ) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Fifth Chamber )
                      of 29 February 1996
in Case C-l 10/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Bruges ):                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Intercommunale voor Zeewaterontzilting ( INZO ) v.                                         of 29 February 1996
                          Belgian State (')
                                                                            in Case C-122/94: Commission of the European
( VAT — Concept of economic activity — Status of taxable                    Community v. Council of the European Union ( 1 )
person — Activity confined to a profitability study for a
    project, followed by the abandonment of the project)                        (Common agricultural policy — State aid)
                           ( 96/C 133/ 13 )                                                      ( 96/C 133/ 14 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                    published in the European Court Reports)
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-122/94 : Commission of the European
In Case C- 1 10/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177          Communities ( Agents : Xenophon Yataganas and Ben
of the EC Treaty from the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg                  Smulders ) v . Council of the European Union ( Agents :
( Court of First Instance ), Bruges ( Belgium ), for a                 Ramon Torrent and Diego Canga Fano ) supported by
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that              French Republic ( Agents : Catherine de Salins and
court between Intercommunale voor Zeewaterontzilting                   Jean-Louis Falconi ) and by the Italian Republic ( Agent:
( INZO ), in liquidation, and Belgian State — on the                   Professor Luigi Ferrari Bravo ) — application for annulment
interpretation of Article 4(1 ) and ( 2 ) of the Sixth Council         of two Council Decisions of 21 February 1994 under the
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                             third subparagraph of Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty
harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to             relating to the grant of special aid for the distillation of


title: Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Masotti and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-312/97)

text:
C 55/28                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.2.98
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         Ð breach of the order of preference established by the
                                                                        EC Treaty in favour of OCT goods,
Ð annul Council Decision 97/803/EC of 24 November
     1997 (OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50) pursuant to                 Ð infringement of Article 85 of the OCT Decision in
     Articles 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty,                             conjunction with Annex XXXII to the LomeÂ
                                                                        Convention,
     or, in the alternative,
                                                                    Ð infringement of Article 18 of the Vienna Convention
                                                                        on the Law of Treaties.
Ð annul paragraphs 31, 32, 53 (in so far as it concerns
     Article 232(1), first and second indents), 54 and 55 of
                                                                    (1) OJ L 263, 19.9.1991, p. 1.
     Article 1 of Council Decision 97/803/EC of
     24 November 1997 (OJ L 329, 29.11.1997, p. 50)
     pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC Treaty,
     and
                                                                    Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Masotti and
Ð order the Council to pay the costs.                               Others against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
                                                                                (Case T-312/97)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (98/C 55/57)
The contested Decision (hereinafter the Decision') amends
Decision 91/482/EEC on the association of the overseas                             (Language of the case: Italian)
countries and territories with the EEC (1) (hereinafter the
OCT Decision') by supplementing a number of
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
provisions. As the OCT Decision is addressed to the
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
Netherlands Antilles pursuant to Articles 237 and 238 of
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 8 December
the OCT Decision and Annex I to that Decision, expressly
                                                                    1997 by Masotti srl, Masotti Ermidio, F.lli Pevere
listing the Netherlands Antilles as one of the OCT, the
                                                                    autotrasporti srl, Giacomo Folicaldi & figli snc, Tam
Decision modifies the rights and obligations of the
                                                                    Alceo di Tam Pierluigi, Nuova Friultrasport srl, Del
applicant, in particular the preferential treatment of goods
                                                                    Fabbro Rudi e del Fabbro Raffaele, Assisped srl,
originating in the OCT and the system for minimum
                                                                    Castagnara Trasporti srl, Castelletti Ezio autotrasporti di
export prices.
                                                                    Castelletti Ezio & C. sas, Cesca Nazzario, Cesca Roberto,
                                                                    D. & G. Spedizioni srl, Tracev srl, S. N. U. A. srl, Tecno
The applicant fears that it will suffer substantial damage          Trasport srl, Italspurghi ecologia srl, Tib-cunja srl,
and be deprived of a valuable tool for its social and               Grusovin Edoardo, La Goriziana srl, Luigi Kodermac
economic development.                                               succ. srl, Autotrasporti Kusterle srl, Romano Caprara srl,
                                                                    Gia.Tra.Gianesini trasporti srl, Autotrasporti Ribi SpA,
                                                                    Mattia Winkler srl, Interbartolo SpA, Paolo Ceriani
The pleas in law raised by the applicant to contest the             Autotrasporti srl, Trasporti teatrali di Paoletti Roberto &
Decision concern lack of competence, breach of essential            C. snc, Gianesini Erminio srl, Mar-Ter spedizioni SpA,
procedural requirements and infringements of the                    represented by Roberto Petiziol and Alessandra Pergolese,
EC Treaty, of provisions implementing the EC Treaty and/            of the Udine Bar, with an address for service at their
or general principles of Community law. In particular, the          Chambers at Udine, via Ginnasio Vecchio, 6.
applicant puts forward the following pleas:
                                                                    The applicants claim that the Court should:
Ð lack of competence ratione temporis,
                                                                    Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of
Ð breach of Articles 131(3), 132(1) and (5), 133(1),                    30 July 1997,
     136(2) and 227(1) of the EC Treaty,
                                                                    Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
Ð breach of the principle of legal certainty,                           inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
                                                                        the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with
                                                                        the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid
Ð breach of Article 3(r) of the EC Treaty in conjunction                was paid,
     with Article 131(2) of the EC Treaty,
                                                                    Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European
Ð breach of the principle of proportionality,                           Communities to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.98                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 55/29
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those                The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia                     relied upon in Case T-288/97 Regione Friuli-Venezia
Giulia v. Commission (1).                                               Giulia v. Commission (1).
(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.                          (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
Action brought on 11 December 1997 by Anna Maria                        Action brought on 17 December 1997 by Dalmine SpA
Baldo and Others against the Commission of the                             against the Commission of the European Communities
                    European Communities                                                        (Case T-596/97)
                        (Case T-313/97)
                                                                                (98/C 55/59)
                          (98/C 55/58)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
An action against the Commission of the European                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       Instance of the European Communities on 17 December
Instance of the European Communities on 11 December                     1997 by Dalmine SpA, represented by Fabrizio Arossa,
1997 by Mr and Mrs Baldo Anna Maria, Lena Livio,                        Avvocato, and Rachel Brandenburger, Solicitor of
Peresson Francesco, Burello Angelo, Iuretig Ugo, Buiatti                Freshfields, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
Gianfranco, Buiatti Eligio, Koren Alberto, Plesnicar Luigi,             the office of Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 2 place Winston
Marega Antonella, Interbartolo Gandolfo, Bandelli Luigi,                Churchill, Luxembourg.
Minutillo Vincenzo, Pontarini Roberto, Misson Luigi,
Ferro Luigi, Zanin Mario Tristano, Krt Narcizo, Nicoletti
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Renato, Damiani Gilberto, Bergamo Giuseppe, Frosutto
Renato, Zanin Lucio, Smoljan Liberato, De Monte
Gianantonio, Liva Guido, Dominutti Giancarlo, Taboga                    Ð on the grounds more particularly set out in the
Silvio, Mini Dino, Agostinis Luigi, Fontana Silvano,                         application, annul Articles 2 and 4 of Commission
Caruzzi Luciano, Di Bidino Amabile, Tomasin Renzo,                           Decision C(97) 3036 of 6 October 1997 in so far as
Narduzzi Sereno, Collorigh Edo, Rizzi Giuliano, Coppola                      these Articles relate to the applicant,
Aurelio, Piron Robertino, Amerio Paolo (ditta Amerio
Carlo & c.), Amerio Paolo (ditta Percotrans di Paolo
Amerio & c.), Murello Aurelio, Aristone Claudio, Budola                 Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
Giuliano, Coppola Aurelio, Deganis Luciano, Fantini
Enzo, Uboldi Attilio, Culino Paolino, Bernardis Arrigo,
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Miniussi Alfio, Monai Patrizia, Cok Celeste, Di Vora
Angelo, represented by Vincenzo Cinque and Luciana
Candriella, of the Udine Bar, with an address for service at            The applicant, a public limited company incorporated
the Chambers of Luciana Candriella, aÁ Udine, via                       under Italian law, partially challenges a Decision arising
Morpurgo, 34.                                                           out of an investigation by the Commission into alleged
                                                                        infringements of Article 85 of the EC Treaty by producers
                                                                        of steel tubes. According to the applicant, even though
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Article 4 of the contested Decision formally mentions
                                                                        three addressees, the same provision shows that the
Ð annul Commission Decision C(97) 2735 final of                         Commission has attempted to notify the Decision to
     30 July 1997,                                                      Siderca Saic, an indirect parent company of the applicant,
                                                                        and to the Techint Group', both established in Argentina,
                                                                        by delivering it to the applicant at its registered address.
Ð in the alternative, annul Article 5 of that Decision
     inasmuch as it requires the Member State to recover
     the aid (granted as from 1 July 1990), together with               The applicant submits in this regard that the Commission
     the interest accrued as from the date on which the aid             has infringed an essential procedural requirement, misused
     was paid,                                                          its powers and infringed the EC Treaty and the rules
                                                                        relating to its application, since it is not entitled to send a
                                                                        request for information to third parties by way of a
Ð in any event, order the Commission of the European                    Decision pursuant to Article 11(5) of Regulation No 17
     Communities to pay the costs.                                      notified to the applicant and to require the latter to pass


title: Case T-76/13: Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon v OHIM — Staccata (QUARTODIMIGLIO QM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark QUARTODIMIGLIO QM — Earlier Community and international figurative marks representing two extended wings and earlier international figurative marks LONGINES — Relative grounds for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — No damage to reputation — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/25

      Judgment of the General Court of 12 February 2015 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon v OHIM — Staccata (QUARTODIMIGLIO QM)
      (Case T-76/13) (1)

      ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark QUARTODIMIGLIO QM - Earlier Community and international figurative marks representing two extended wings and earlier international figurative marks LONGINES - Relative grounds for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009))
      (2015/C 107/32)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (Saint-Imier, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Staccata Srl (Como, Italy)

         Re:

      Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 November 2012 (Case R 62/2012-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA and Staccata Srl.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA, to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 108, 13.4.2013.


title: Case T-4/04: Action brought on 5 January 2004 by R.K. Achaiber Sing against the Commission of the European Communities and Council of the European Union

text:
C 59/34               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         6.3.2004
—     uphold Decision No 2880/2002 of 27 September 2002                 Action brought on 5 January 2004 by R.K. Achaiber Sing
      of the Opposition Division;                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                and Council of the European Union
—     require OHIM to refuse the CTM Application;
                                                                                (Case T-4/04)
—     order Spa Monopole and/or OHIM to (a) bear the costs
      of the Opposition proceedings (b) the proceedings before
                                                                                (2004/C 59/54)
      the Board of Appeal, and (c) the costs of these proceed-
      ings.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties and Council of the European Union was brought before
Applicant for the Com-       S.A. Spa Monopole N.V.                     the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
munity trade mark:                                                      5 January 2004 by R.K. Achaiber Sing, residing in Leiden
                                                                        (Netherlands), represented by J.G.G. Wilgers.
The Community trade          The figurative mark ‘KINJI by SPA’
mark concerned:              for goods in Classes 29 and 32
                             (e.g. fruit pulp and mineral and           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                             aerated waters and other non-
                             alcoholic drinks containing fruit          1.    Primarily, declare that Decision 2000/666/EC contains a
                             juice)                                           measure having an equivalent effect to a quantitative and
                                                                              qualitative restriction on imports between Member States
Proprietor of the right to   The applicant                                    of the World Trade Organisation and that this decision is
the trade mark or sign                                                        at variance with Article 131 of the EEC Treaty, with the
asserted by way of oppo-                                                      result that it is null and void;
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                            2.    Primarily and in the alternative, order the European
                                                                              Community to pay compensation in respect of the
Trade mark or sign           The Community trade mark ‘KIN-                   damage, to be quantified, which the applicant has
asserted by way of oppo-     NIE’ (No 427 237) for goods                      incurred as a result of the obligations arising under
sition in the opposition     in Class 32 (Beers; non-alcoholic                Decision 2000/666/EC;
proceedings:                 drinks; preparations for making
                             beverages)                                 3.    Order the Community to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Decision of the Oppo-        Rejection of the trade mark
sition Division:             application
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
Decision of the Board of     Annulment of the Decision of the
Appeal:                      Opposition Division and rejection
                             of the opposition                          The applicant imports live birds from non-member countries
                                                                        and states that he is obliged under the contested decision to
Grounds of claim:            —     Violation of Article 8 (1)(b)        incur costs for the establishment of a quarantine area. He states
                                   of Regulation (EC) No 40/            further that, as he has recently discovered, he is obliged to
                                   94;                                  incur further costs by reason of the national provisions giving
                                                                        effect to the contested decision.
                             —     Breach of Article 73 of Regu-
                                   lation (EC) 40/94;
                                                                        The applicant submits that the contested decision is at
                             —     Likelihood of confusion on           variance with the Agreement establishing the World Trade
                                   the part of the public in all,       Organisation, and in particular with Articles 2(2) and 3 of the
                                   or alternatively in a signifi-       Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
                                   cant proportion of territories       Measures. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision
                                   within the European Com-             constitutes a hidden barrier to trade which makes commerce
                                   munity.                              in live, non-protected birds practically impossible.


               29.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 271/27

         The new Judges of the Civil Service Tribunal take the oath
   (2005/C 271/50)
   Appointed Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by the Council Decision of 22 July 2005 appointing Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (1) with effect from 1 October 2005, Ms Boruta, Mr Gervasoni, Mr Kanninen, Mr Kreppel, Mr Mahoney, Mr Tagaras and Mr van Raepenbusch took the oath before the Court of Justice on 5 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 197, 28.7.2005, p. 28.


title: Case C-104/07: Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/11

         Order of the President of the Court of 25 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-104/07) (1)

   (2007/C 235/20)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.


title: Removal from the register of C-19/96

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 7/11
national deriving taxable income from employment in                         Removal from the register of C-376/95 (1)
Germany without having a permanent residence or usual                                        (98/C 7/28)
abode there and his spouse, who is not permanently
separated from him and likewise has no permanent
residence or usual abode in Germany and earns income               By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
abroad, are not to be treated as persons subject to                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
unlimited taxation for the purposes of applying                    removal from the register of Case C-376/95 (reference for
Paragraph 26.1, sentence 1, EStG (joint assessment) on the         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova):
ground that the combined income of the spouses for the             Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v. Amministrazione delle
calendar year in question does not fall to at least 90 %           Finanze dello Stato.
within the German EStG, or that the income not subject
to the German EStG amounts to more than DM 24 000?                 (1) OJ C 16, 20. 1. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-229/95 (1)                           Removal from the register of C-19/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/29)
                          (98/C 7/25)
                                                                   By order of 20 October 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             removal from the register of Case C-19/96 (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-229/95 (reference for          a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Travail (Labour
a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden):           Court) Nivelles): Vito Casano v. Institut National
Simone Moll v. Berhane Mesghena.                                   d'Assurance Maladie InvaliditeÂ, Union Nationale des
                                                                   MutualiteÂs Libres.
(1) OJ C 229, 2. 9. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 77, 16. 3. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-333/95 (1)
                          (98/C 7/26)                                        Removal from the register of C-86/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/30)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-333/95 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): F.lli          removal from the register of Case C-86/96 (reference for a
Carli SpA and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze              preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
delle Stato.                                                       Prima Civile): Palmera SpA v. Amministrazione delle
                                                                   Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-348/95 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of C-87/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/27)
                                                                                (98/C 7/31)
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-348/95 (reference for          removal from the register of Case C-87/96 (reference for a
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
Administrativo): FaÂbrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. v.         Prima Civile): Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v.
MinisteÂrio PuÂblico and Fazenda PuÂblica.                         Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.                                        (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tariefcommissie by order of that court of 21 September 1995 in the case of Road Air BV v. Inspector of Customs and Excise, Hoofddorp (Case C-310/95)

text:
No C 299/ 14           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 11 . 95
   without referring to requests for final payment                    ( Administrative Court for Customs and Excise ) of
   submitted after 31 March 1995 , is contrary to general             21 September 1995 , which was received at the Court
   principles of Community law, in particular :                       Registry on 29 September 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                      the case of Road Air BV v. Inspector of Customs and Excise ,
   — the principle of the duty to act in good faith/principle         Hoofddorp , on the following question :
       of ( regional ) partnership ( Article 5 of the EC Treaty ):
       the Commission has failed to arrive at a definitive
                                                                      Is Part Four of the EEC Treaty , in particular Articles 1 32 (1 ),
       settlement of accounts in respect of the projects by            133 ( 1 ) and 134 , to be interpreted — regardless of any
       cooperating in good faith and engaging in effective            distinction between goods originating in the OCT and
       consultations with the Netherlands Government ,                goods originating in third countries , and thus by way of
       and has thus unlawfully omitted to take into                   derogation from Council Decisions 86/283/EEC (') and
       consideration requests for final payment submitted             91 / 1 10/EEC ( 2 ) — as meaning that no customs duties were
       as a precautionary measure . In so acting, the                 payable on 25 June 1991 on goods which , immediately
       Commission is contravening the objectives of the               before being imported into the Community, were in free
       ERDF ,                                                         circulation in an OCT country ?
   — the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                      (') OJ No L 175 , 1986 , p . 1 .
       expectations : in view of the fact that Article 1 2 of the     (-) OJ No L 58 , 1991 , p . 27 .
        1993 ERDF Regulation in any event infringes
       acquired rights to subsidies by providing that they
       are to cease definitively on 30 September 1995 , and
       in view also of the action taken by the Commission
       in the past, the Netherlands Government was
       justifiably entitled to expect that applications for
       payment submitted after 3 1 March 1 995 but in good                               ORDER OF THE COURT
       time before 30 September 1995 would be taken into                                   of 29 September 1995
       consideration in the final settlement of accounts ,
                                                                      in Case C-2/94 SA : Empresa Nacional de Urânio SA ( ENU )
                                                                             v . Commission of the European Communities ( l )
   — the principle of proportionality : taking all the
       circumstances into account, the Commission could               (Request for authorization to seize assets of the Community
       not reasonably have reached the contested decision                                         in Portugal)
       providing that assistance for projects already                                           ( 95 /C 299/24 )
       completed , amounting to Fl 15 606 552 , was no
       longer to be payable .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— In so far as the Commission 's interpretation of the
   aforementioned provision is correct, and the timelimit of          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
   31 March 1995 which it lays down is justified , the                           published in the European Court Reports)
   Commission has unlawfully failed ( contrary , at least , to
   Article 12 of the 1993 ERDF Regulation and the                     In Case C-2/94 SA : Empresa Nacional de Uranio SA ( ENU ),
   abovementioned principles of Community law ) to treat              a company incorporated under Portuguese law, whose
   the letter of 21 March 1995 from the Ministry of                   registered office is in Urgeiri<;a , Nelas , represented by
   Economic Affairs as a request for final payment .                  Professor Joao Mota de Campos , of the Lisbon Bar, Rua
   Moreover, the Commission adopted the contested                     Antonio Enes, 16-5 " E, 1000 Lisbon v. Commission of the
   decision without first consulting the Committee of the             European Communities ( Agents : Antonio Caeiro and
   Fund . In addition, having regard to the foregoing, the            Jurgen Grunwald ) — application for authorization to seize
   Commission has failed, contrary to Article 1 90 of the FX          assets of the Community in Portugal — the Court,
   Treaty, to provide any or any adequate statement of                composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President, F. A.
   reasons for the contested decision .                               Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn , C. Gulmann and P. Jann
                                                                       ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris ,
                                                                      J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
                                                                       ( Rapporteur ), J. -P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and
                                                                       H. Ragnemalm, Judges ; A. La Pergola ; Advocate-General ;
                                                                       R. Grass, Registrar , made an order on 29 September 1 995 of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tariefcommissie           which the operative part is as follows :
by order of that court of 21 September 1995 in the case
of Road Air BV v. Inspector of Customs and Excise,                      1 . there is no need to give a decision ;
                            Hoofddorp
                        ( Case C-3 10/95 )                             2 . the parties are to bear their own costs .
                          ( 95 /C 299/23 )
                                                                       (M O J No C 392 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tariefcommissie


title: Action brought on 5 May 1998 by Société Chimique Prayon Rupel S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-73/98)

text:
C 209/44              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4.7.98
which, by exceeding the limit of three years referred to in        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the abovementioned provision, led to the aid initially
provided for being reduced from 9 % to 4.5 % of the total
cost of the project.                                               The applicant, a company incorporated under Belgian law
                                                                   which manufactures and sells purified phosphoric acid, a
                                                                   finished product derived from wet' processing, and
In support of its claims the applicant alleges that the            phosphatic salts, contests the decision of the Commission
Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in             approving certain aid granted by the German authorities
not considering that the four factors enumerated above             in favour of Chemische Werke Piesteritz GmbH (CWP'),
constituted unexpected disruptions of a substantial and            inasmuch as the said aid constitutes measures which are
defensible nature, within the meaning of Article 4 of              supplementary to its restructuring and privatisation. It
Directive 90/684/EEC, which affected the working                   alleges that those measures concern, in particular, the
programme of the yard.                                             covering of losses, suspension of payment of the purchase
                                                                   price and investment aid. CWP produces pure phosphoric
Furthermore, the present action is based on an                     acid by means of the thermal' process, yellow phosphorus
infringement of Article 190 of the Treaty inasmuch as,             and phosphatic salts. One of the fundamental aspects of
according to the applicant, the Commission failed to               the present dispute concerns the alleged error of
provide a sufficient statement of reasons for the contested        assessment committed by the Commission in considering
decision.                                                          that, in order to switch over from the thermal process to
                                                                   the wet process, it is necessary merely to replace the
                                                                   chemical processor'.
Finally, the applicant claims that the principle of
proportionality has been breached inasmuch as the
conduct of the applicant, namely the delay of 7 to 14              The applicant advances the following pleas in law in
months in the delivery of the vessels, has led to a halving        support of its claims:
of the aid.
(1) Commission Decision 98/157/EC of 5 November 1997               Ð Infringement of Articles 92(3)(c) and 93(3), inasmuch
    concerning aid Spain proposes to grant to Astilleros                the Commission committed a manifest error in its
    Zamacona S.A. in respect of five tugboats (OJ L 50 of               assessment of the facts and thus wrongly decided that
    20.2.1998 p. 38).                                                   the aid could be authorised on the basis of
(2) OJ L 380 of 31.12.1990 p. 27.                                       Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
(3) OJ L 351 of 31.12.1994 p. 10.
                                                                   Ð Manifest error of assessment of the scope and
                                                                        financing of the investment, inasmuch as the defendant
                                                                        erred in considering that private funds amounting to
                                                                        DM 10 million would be invested.
Action brought on 5 May 1998 by SocieÂteÂ Chimique
Prayon Rupel S.A. against the Commission of the
                    European Communities                           Ð Unlawful and wrongful application of the guidelines
                                                                        on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in
                        (Case T-73/98)                                  difficulty. More specifically: the Commission
                         (98/C 209/91)                                  unlawfully characterised the measures in question as
                                                                        restructuring aid; consideration of the figures provided
                                                                        offers no credible guarantee of a return to viability;
                (Language of the case: French)                          and, lastly, the new investment in fact results in an
                                                                        increase in capacity. Moreover, the Commission
An action against the Commission of the European                        grossly underestimated the distortions of competition
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       resulting from the aid measure, and also erred in
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1998 by                   deciding that the aid in issue was limited to the
SocieÂteÂ Chimique Prayon Rupel S.A., established at Engis              minimum strictly necessary.
(Belgium), represented by Bernard van de Walle de
Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue               Ð Infringement of the provisions of Article 92(2) and (3)
Goethe.                                                                 of the EC Treaty, inasmuch as, despite the difficulties
                                                                        presented by the present case, the defendant failed to
                                                                        comply with its obligation to initiate the preliminary
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             procedure provided for in Article 93(2), in disregard of
                                                                        the guarantees for which Article 93(2) provides.
Ð annul the decision dated 16 December 1997/22 January
     1998 concerning State aid cases N 198/97 and NN 91/
     98 Ð Germany Ð Financial measures in favour of                     Finally, the applicant       pleads   infringement    of
     Chemische Werke Piesteritz,                                        Article 190 of the Treaty.
Ð order the Commission to pay all of the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 11 August 1995 in Case C-16/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the French Cour de Cassation): Édouard Dubois et Fils SA and Général Cargo Services SA v. Garonor Exploitation SA (Transit charge payable under a private contract - Charge having equivalent effect)

text:
14 . 10 . 95           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 268/7
4 , the 1 0 % margin of manoeuvre provided for in the first            costs arising from the performance by the customs and
     subparagraph of Article 25 (2) of Regulation (EEC)                veterinary services of their tasks as providers of services in
     No 1 785/81 relates to the A and B quotas allocated to an         the public interest even if it has not been imposed by the
     undertaking, within the framework of the quota system             State but arises from an agreement concluded by that
     in force, by a national decision taken by the Member              undertaking with its customers.
     State on the basis of Article 24 of that Regulation,
     sharing out among the undertakings operating in its
     territory the basic A and B quantities allocated to it;           (>) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
5 , the term 'restructuring plans ' within the meaning of the
     second subparagraph of Article 25 (2) of Regulation
     (EEC) No 1785/81 , allowing quotas to be adjusted in
     Italy without the 10% limit applying, refers to plans
     concerning the sugar sector as a whole at national or
     regional level.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(M OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .
                                                                                ( First Chamber )
                                                                                of 11 August 1995
                                                                       in Case C-43/94 P: European Parliament v. Philippe
                                                                                Vienne H
                                                                       (Officiai — Daily subsistence allowance — Cumulative
                                                                                benefits)
                                                                                ( 95/C 268/14 )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                                              (Language of the case: French)
                        of 11 August 1995
in Case C- 1 6/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
French Cour de Cassation ): Édouard Dubois et Fils SA and               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Général Cargo Services SA v. Garonor Exploitation                                published in the European Court Reports)
                                SA (M
 (Transit charge payable under a private contract — Charge
                     having équivalent effect)                         In Case C-43/94 P : European Parliament ( agent: Ezio
                           ( 95/C 268/13 )                             Perillo ) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities ( Fourth Chamber )
                                                                        of 30 November 1993 in Case T-15/93 Vienne v . European
                                                                        Parliament [ 1993 ] ECR 11-1327, seeking to have that
                (Language of the case: French)                          judgment set aside — the other party to the proceedings
                                                                        being: Philippe Vienne, an official of the European
                                                                        Parliament, resident in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
          published in the European Court Reports)                      Luxembourg at the office of SARL Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue
                                                                        Glesener — the Court ( First Chamber ), composed of: P.
                                                                       Jann ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, D. A. O.
 In Case C- 1 6/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of        Edward and L. Sévon, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate-General;
 the EC Treaty from the French Cour de Cassation ( Court of             R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 August
 Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                1995 , in which it:
 pending before that court between Édouard Dubois et Fils
 SA and Général Cargo Services SA and Garonor
 Exploitation SA — on the interpretation of Articles 9,12,13             1 , dismisses the appeal;
 and 16 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
 composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, P.
 Jann, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward                       2 , orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
 (Rapporteur) and L. Sévon, Judges; A. M. La Pergola,
 Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, for the Registrar, has
 given a judgment on 11 August 1995, in which it rules:              , (!) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
 Articles 9 and 12 of the EC Treaty apply to a transit charge
 designed to compensate a private undertaking for bearing


30 . 12 . 95            LN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 351 /21
    under Article 93 ( 3 ). In any case, the assessment as to              ( b ) annul the decision of the selection board of
    whether or not shipbuilding aid can be exempted as                           15 November 1994 refusing to admit her to
    development aid under Article 4 ( 7 ) of the shipbuilding                    competition COM/T/A/95 ;
    Directive     involves     difficult factual    issues   which
    necessitate the       initiation of the      Article   93    (2)
                                                                       — in the a ternative :
    procedure,
                                                                           ( a ) declare that the decisions by which the Commission
— the Commission has failed to establish that the contested                      adopted its general policy regarding temporary staff
    aid was necessary in order for the shipping line to                          in March 1992 and February 1 994 are in breach of
    contribute to the development of the developing                              the principles referred to in the applicant's pleas,
    country . It is clear that the contrary is the case in that the              and declare them inapplicable to the applicant;
    real owners of the 'Tahiti Nui ' are French companies
    who want to take advantage of generous tax advantages                  ( b ) annul the decision of the Commission of 27 July
    and do not need development aid in order to contribute                       19 95 refusing to admit her to any supplemental
    to the development of the French overseas departments                        competition leading to establishment other than
    and territories but can afford to buy vessels at normal                      competition COM/T/A/95 ,
    market rates,
                                                                       — in the further alternative, order the Commission to pay
— the Commission has failed to analyse the impact of the                   her damages on account of the erroneous and prejudicial
    contested aid on competition in the cruise travel market               nature of the contested decisions; the applicant reserves
    in the Community and between Community shipyards .                     the right to submit later on in the proceedings detailed
    As a question of fact, this aid has had a significant                  calculations of the loss suffered by her,
    adverse impact on the applicants ' operations,
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
— the decision has infringed the applicants' rights of
    defence and has failed to take              account of the
    Commission 's duties of impartiality, diligence, care and          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    good administration .
                                                                       The applicant, formerly a member of the temporary staff in
                                                                       category A and currently a member, in the same category, of
                                                                       the auxiliary staff of the Commission , contests the decision
                                                                       of the selection board in internal competition COM/T/A/95
                                                                       refusing to admit her to the tests in that competition on the
                                                                       ground that she was not a member of the temporary staff on
                                                                       the final date for submission of applications, as required by
                                                                       the notice of competition .
Action brought on 10 November 1995 by Claudine
Petit-Laurent against the Commission of the European
                            Communities                                The applicant relies, in support of her claims , on the same
                                                                       pleas and arguments as those invoked in Case T-207/95 .
                          Case T-211 /95 )
                           ( 95/C 351 /39 )
                 (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                             Removal from the register of Case T-526/93 ( )
Instance of the European Communities on 10 November
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /40 )
1995 by Claudine Petit-Laurent, residing in Brussels
( Belgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau .                                           (Language of the case: Lnglish)
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           By order of 10 November 1995 the President of the First
                                                                       Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
— principally :                                                        from the register of Case T-526/93 : Matthew Fogarty,
                                                                       James Eager, Denis O'Halloran , John Joseph Dillon ,
     ( a ) declare notice of competition COM/T/A/95 illegal            John Joe Lynch, Mary and Martin McMahon , Joseph
           and inapplicable to the applicant;                          Fitzsimmons and Howard McCollum v. Council of the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 351 /22           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               30 . 12 . 95
European Union and Commission of the European                                  Removal from the register of Joined Cases
Communities .                                                                    T- 18 9/94 , T-190/94 and T-191 /94 (')
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /43 )
(') 0 | No C 312 , 8 . 11 . 1993 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
      Removal from the register of Case T-561 /93 ( )                  By order of 19 October 1995 the President of the First
                                                                       Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First
                           ( 95/C 351 /41 )
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
              (Language of the case: English)                          from the register of Joined Cases T-l 89/94 , T-190/94
                                                                       and T-191 /94 : Philippe Heno, Michel Manchion and
By order of 16 October 1995 the President of the Second                Jean-Michel Tellier v. Council of the European Union and
Chamber, extended composition , of the Court of First                  Commission of the European Communities .
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case T-561 /93 : Tiercé Ladbroke SA v.            (') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7 . 1994 .
Commission of the European Communities .
(') OJ No C 334 , 9 . 12 . 1993 .
       Removal from the register of Case T-66/94 ( )                        Removal from the register of Case T-154/95 H
                           ( 95/C 351 /42 )                                                      ( 95/C 351 /44 )
               (Language of the case: Italian)                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
By order of 8 November 1995 the President of the Fourth
Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court of First                 By order of 21 November 1995 the President of the Fifth
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-66/94 : Auditel Sri v.                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Commission of the European Communities .                               T-154/95 : Ittima Maremmana Sari v. Commission of the
                                                                       European Communities .
(') 0 } No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .


title: Case C-170/00: Action brought on 9 May 2000 by the Republic of Finland against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
26.8.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 247/13
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is also vitiated by         Pleas in law and main arguments
errors of law and defective reasoning in relation to the concept
of a single and continuous agreement — the Cembureau
agreement censured in Article 1 of the decision.                        The Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                        Article 2 of the said Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC, by
                                                                        maintaining in force legislation under which supplies of works
In the appellant’s submission, the contested judgment warrants          of art by artists or intermediaries and imports of works of art
censure also in the part relating to the penalty, which annulled        bought directly from artists are exempted from value added
or reduced by reason of the following considerations:                   tax.
—    erroneous assessment of the duration and seriousness of
     the alleged infringements;                                         Under the Sixth VAT Directive it is not possible to exempt
                                                                        supplies or imports of works of art from value added tax.
—    the rejection of the request for amendment of the fine;            Nor is exemption permitted under point 2(n) of Part IX of
                                                                        Annex XV to the Act concerning the conditions of accession
                                                                        of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
—    insufficient reasons for the judgment in relation to the
                                                                        Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on
     reference turnover;
                                                                        which the European Union is founded.
—    misassessment of Cementir’s criticism concerning the
     limitation referred to in Article 2(1);
                                                                        (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
—    infringement of the principles of fairness and pro-                    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
     portionality and defective reasoning in relation to the                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
     assessment of the criteria for determining fines.                      basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
(1) OJ L 343, 30.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                        Action brought on 9 May 2000 by the Republic of Finland
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
Action brought on 8 May 2000 by the Commission of the
  European Communities against the Republic of Finland                                            (Case C-170/00)
                        (Case C-169/00)                                                          (2000/C 247/16)
                        (2000/C 247/15)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before            Communities on 9 May 2000 by the Republic of Finland,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 May               represented by Tuula Pynnä, Valtionasiamies, Legislative
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     Adviser in the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign
represented by Esa Paasivirta and Enrico Traversa, of its Legal         Affairs, acting as Agent, and Elisabeth Bygglin, Legislative
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in               Adviser in that ministry, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner            Luxembourg at the Finnish Embassy, 2 Rue Heine.
Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        Finland claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Annul Commission Decision 2000/216/EC of 1 March
1.   Declare that, by maintaining in force legislation under                  2000 excluding from Community financing certain
     which supplies of works of art by artists or intermediaries              expenditure incurred by the Member States under the
     and imports of works of art bought directly from artists                 Guarantee Sect on of the European Agricultural Guidance
     are exempted from value added tax, the Republic of                       and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (1) in so far as it refuses to
     Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2             charge to the EAGGF the sum of FIM 7 270 885,76
     of the Sixth VAT Directive (1);                                          included in Finland’s expenditure for the 1996 and 1997
                                                                              financial years of the EAGGF Guarantee Section with
2.   Order Finland to pay the costs.                                          respect to meat premiums;
 ---pagebreak--- C 247/14                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      26.8.2000
—     Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                Action brought on 17 May 2000 by the Commission
                                                                            of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                Finland
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                       (Case C-185/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 247/17)
The Commission incorrectly applied Article 5(2)(c) of Regu-
lation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on                   An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before
the financing of the common agricultural policy (2), as amended             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May
by Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 of 22 May 1995                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
amending Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 on the financing of the                 represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Ilkka
common agricultural policy (3), read in conjunction with                    Koskinen, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Article 8(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of                    for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of               Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure
for clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee
Section (4).                                                                The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has breached its
                                                                                obligations as a Member State by failing to fulfil its
The Commission did not observe the proper procedure                               obligations under Article 8(2) and (3) of Council Directive
established by those regulations for reimbursement of funding,                    92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of
since it refused, contrary to the above provisions, to fund the                   the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (1) and
expenditure which was incurred earlier than 24 months before                      Article 5(1) of Council Directive 92/82/EEC of 19 Octo-
the relevant written notification from the Commission to                          ber 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise
Finland concerning the results of the checks done. The                            duties on mineral oils (2), by maintaining in force the laws
Commission exceeded that time limit by the above-mentioned                        and regulations concerning the use of light fuel oil as
Commission Decision 2000/216/EC with respect to                                   motor fuel.
FIM 7 270 885,76 in the reimbursement of funding for the
1996 and 1997 financial years, in that Finland received the
written notice referred to in the above-mentioned provisions                      In particular, it is said that Finland has not implemented
only on 22 December 1998, but the reimbursement of funding                        the fiscal control referred to in Article 8 of Directive
relates, as regards the above-mentioned sum, to expenditure                       92/81/EEC with respect to the distribution and use of
which was incurred earlier than 24 months before receipt of                       light fuel oil. The possibility in Finland of lawfully using
that notification (that is, 16 October 1995 to 21 December                        as motor fuel, by paying tax (motor vehicle tax and the
1996). The documents sent by the Commission before the                            price of the fuel), light fuel oil taxable as heating oil is
letter received on 22 December 1998 were so defective that                        regarded as contrary to Article 5 of Directive 92/82/EEC;
Finland was not able effectively to defend its rights and
properly reply to the Commission’s views. In the telex sent on              2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
20 May 1997, for example, there was no reference to Regu-
lation No 1663/95, and the Commission’s letter dated 17 Sep-
tember 1998, the Finnish text of which was received by
Finland on 24 September 1998, lacked the annex referred to                  Pleas in law and main arguments
in the letter.
                                                                            Article 99 EC (formerly Article 93 of the EC Treaty) requires
                                                                            inter alia the harmonisation of legislation concerning excise
The Commission also incorrectly stated in Decision                          duties and other indirect taxation to the extent that harmonis-
2000/216/EC that it did not concern expenditure incurred                    ation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the func-
earlier than 24 months before the written notification of the               tioning of the internal market. That provision of the Treaty is
results of the checks.                                                      the legal basis both of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of
                                                                            19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of
                                                                            excise duties on mineral oils and of Council Directive
                                                                            92/82/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the
                                                                            rates of excise duties on mineral oils.
( 1) OJ 2000 L 67, p. 37.
( 2) OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218.
( 3) OJ 1995 L 125, p. 1.                                                   In point 5(e) and (f) of Part IX of Annex XV to the Act of
( 4) OJ 1995 L 158, p. 6.
                                                                            Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, ‘List provided for
                                                                            in Article 151 of the Act of Accession’, Finland is authorised
                                                                            to derogate from certain provisions and obligations in those
                                                                            directives. Those provisions of the Act of Accession do not,


title: Case T-458/10: Action brought on 27 September 2010 — McBride v Commission

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/39

         Action brought on 27 September 2010 — McBride v Commission
   (Case T-458/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/67
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter McBride (Downings, Ireland) (represented by: A. Collins SC, N. Travers, Barrister and D. Barry, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4758 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, to reject a safety capacity application concerning a new fishing vessel, the Peadar Elaine II, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the General Court of Justice delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of Commission Decision notified under document C(2010) 4758 of 13 July 2010 as a letter to Ireland, to reject a safety capacity application concerning a new fishing vessel, the Peadar Elaine II, and taken to replace the decision regarding the said application contained in Commission Decision No 2003/245 of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase in MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), which was annulled, in so far as the applicant is concerned, by judgment of the General Court of Justice delivered on 13 June 2006 in Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03 Boyle and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1699.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, the applicant submits that the defendant acted without a legal basis. Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with the view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and exploitation (OJ 1997 L 175, p. 27) continues to provide the appropriate legal basis for the impugned decision and, thus, the Commission lacked a legal basis purportedly to adopt the decision as an ad hoc decision.

               Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission breached an essential procedural requirement. The applicant submits that the impugned decision, under Council Decision No 97/413/EC, should have been adopted pursuant to the management committee procedure and that, in choosing to adopt the decision on an ad hoc basis, the Commission acted in breach of essential procedural requirements.

               Thirdly, the applicant submits that by misinterpreting Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC, the Commission exceeded its powers, in particular in relying upon irrelevant criteria and ignoring the definition of ‘fishing effort’ provided in Council Decision No 97/413/EC and in Community fisheries legislation applicable at the time of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage in December 2001.

               In addition, it is submitted that the impugned decision contains a number of manifest errors in the assessment of the applicant’s application for safety tonnage. It particular, the applicant claims that the Commission’s decision to refuse the applicant’s application on the basis, of the use of replacement capacity from a number of smaller vessels for the Peadar Elaine II, meant there was no increase in the total capacity of the polyvalent segment of the Irish fleet when that vessel was registered is unfounded.

               Finally, the applicant alleges that the Commission breached the right to good administration. It is submitted that Commission’s refusal to assess the merits of his application constitutes a breach of its obligations under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and in particular, of his right to have his application, under Article 4(2) of Council Decision No 97/413/EC, assessed ‘fairly and within a reasonable time’.


title: Case T-444/10: Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Esge v OHIM — De’Longhi Benelux (KMIX) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark KMIX — Earlier Community word mark BAMIX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 February 2013 — Esge v OHIM — De’Longhi Benelux (KMIX)
   (Case T-444/10) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KMIX - Earlier Community word mark BAMIX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 108/57
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Esge AG (Bussnang, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: De’Longhi Benelux SA, formerly Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: P. Strickland, Solicitor, and L. St. Ville, Barrister)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2010 (Case R 1249/2009-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Esge AG and Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg SA.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Esge AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-108/15 P: Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Lella Khatziioannou against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-330/13 Lella Khatziioannou v Commission and European Central Bank

text:
               1.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/5

         Appeal brought on 4 March 2015 by Lella Khatziioannou against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 16 October 2014 in Case T-330/13 Lella Khatziioannou v Commission and European Central Bank

   (Case C-108/15 P)
   (2015/C 178/05)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Lella Khatziioannou (represented by: E. Efstathiou, K. Efstathiou and K. Liasidou, dikigori)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission and European Central Bank

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the order under appeal;

               —

               set aside the finding of the General Court that the objection of inadmissibility should be upheld and in particular the finding that ‘statements of the Eurogroup cannot be considered to be acts intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties’ and consequently vis-à-vis the appellant, and that by the contested statement the Eurogroup ‘gave an account in very general terms of certain measures which were agreed at a political level with the Republic of Cyprus’;

               —

               set aside the order under appeal which attributed the impairment of bank deposits to the Republic of Cyprus and failed to attribute any conduct or act or decision whatsoever either to the Eurogroup or to the defendants or to the defendants within the Eurogroup;

               —

               set aside the order that the appellant should pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies on four grounds in support of the appeal. Specifically:

               —

               The order under appeal is vitiated by a defective statement of reasons and was made on the basis of a misinterpretation of the facts and the law in relation to the identity of the body which actually and in reality made the decision on the ‘bail in’ impairment of bank deposits.

               —

               The order under appeal was made contrary to general principles of law in that the General Court misinterpreted the fact that, irrespective of the shape or form taken by the Eurogroup’s contested decision, that decision was in this case an act against which an appeal could be brought.

               —

               The order under appeal is in error in that the General Court for the making of the order failed to examine the legal and actual association of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the Eurogroup and also failed to examine the fact that, on the basis of the principle of legal causation and the true author test, the acts of the Eurogroup constituted acts of the European Central Bank and the European Commission, which ought to have acted in a way compatible with the Treaty and the Protocols of the European Union and on the basis of secondary and derivative law.
               In consequence, the General Court failed to examine the substance of the appellant’s arguments and case, and thus erred in dismissing the action for annulment.

               —

               In the event that this appeal is upheld, the appellant should not be ordered to pay the costs of this appeal or of the proceedings at first instance.