title: Action brought on 16 July 1997 by Società E-Quattro against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-10/98)

text:
28.3.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 94/31
    new rule departing from the provisions of Article 23                termination of the contract and by its notification on
    of the Staff Regulations, according to which the                    the last possible date,
    development of each official's career is linked to the
    results achieved by the department to which he is
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
    assigned. This method would favour officials who
    carry out administrative duties over those in
    operational units which involve a high level of                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    professional risk. Moreover, in the present case, the
    evaluation of the applicant's work was always made
    by managers of whom he had always been critical,               The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
    whereas sound management requires the absolute                 are the same as those raised in Case C-257/97 E-Quattro
    separation of assessors and assessed,                          v. Commission (1).
                                                                   (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997, p. 9.
Ð distortion of the facts and misuse of powers. In the
    applicant's annual assessment for 1996 there are many
    positive statements about him. Nonetheless, the
    defendant blocked every possible career route within
    the Treasury Department. Thus the annual report was
    used systematically for purposes other than those for
    which it was intended,                                         Action brought on 9 January 1998 by Argon srl and
                                                                   Others against the Council of the European Union and the
Ð manifest illogicality and inconsistency of the rejection.                 Commission of the European Communities
    First, in 1996 he assumed direct responsibility for the                                (Case T-12/98)
    management of the cover portfolio and the Guarantee
    Fund, which belies the contested decision, and,                                         (98/C 94/77)
    secondly, since Article 23 of the defendant's Staff
    Regulations places no limits on promotions to D, if                            (Language of the case: Italian)
    the real obstacle to the promotion in question was that
    there were fewer opportunities in the unit dealing with
    obligations, it would have sufficed to transfer the            An action against the Council of the European Union and
    applicant to another operational unit in order to              the Commission of the European Communities was
    resolve the problem.                                           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 9 January 1998 by Argon srl, Berca srl,
                                                                   Bonaldi snc di Guidetti & Co., Camasped di Cassini
                                                                   Marco, Carioni Spedizioni Internazionali srl, Centro
                                                                   Servizi Doganali srl, Comimpex srl, EIR, Casa di
                                                                   spedizioni snc di Brassanelli Eligio & Co., Emmedue sas
                                                                   di Felisati & Co. in liquidazione, Errek sas, F.lli Colli srl,
Action brought on 16 July 1997 by SocietaÁ E-Quattro               F.lli Ramella srl, Greco Umberto di Umberto Greco snc,
  against the Commission of the European Communities               Lurasped di Luerti G. & C. sas in liquidazione, Monterisi
                        (Case T-10/98)                             Giuseppe & Co., Rossi Sergio & Co. snc, Servizi Doganali
                                                                   di Piras Giorgio & Co. snc, Spedizioni ST1 srl, Toccafondi
                         (98/C 94/76)                              Claudio Spedizioniere Doganale srl in liquidazione, Tre
                                                                   Esse snc di Torresani F.lli e Crescini Leandro, Unisped srl,
               (Language of the case: Italian)                     Vergani Spedizioni srl in liquidazione, represented by
                                                                   Gregorio Leone of the Milan Bar, and Mark Clough of the
                                                                   Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
An action against the Commission of the European                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Rue.
Instance of the European Communities on 16 July 1997
by SocietaÁ E-Quattro, represented by Giuseppe
Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service        The applicants claim that the Court should:
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue
Mathias Hardt.
                                                                   Ð declare the defendants liable, within the meaning of
                                                                        the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty, for
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             the damage caused to the applicant companies by the
                                                                        repercussions on their activities as authorised customs
                                                                        agent as a result of the provisions adopted by the
Ð order the Commission to make good the damage
                                                                        Council when organising the free movement of goods
    suffered and being suffered by the applicant as a result
                                                                        within the single market from 1 January 1993 without
    of the persistent delay in paying the balance of the
                                                                        taking the measures necessary to protect the interests
    services set out in the unpaid invoice,
                                                                        of the applicants, as well as for the fact that the
                                                                        Commission has not proposed, nor has the Council
Ð order, further, the Commission to make good the                       adopted, the measures necessary for the legitimate
    damage caused to the company by the unjustified                     protection of the rights of the applicants,


title: Case C-235/06: Action brought on  24 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/22

         Action brought on 24 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-235/06)
   (2006/C 165/41)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to lay down sanctions within the meaning of Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (1), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Article 16 of Regulation No 261/2004 provides that, in the event that no compensation is paid, no re-routing offered or no right to reimbursement granted, sanctions are to be imposed on airlines. The sanctions laid down by the Member States for infringements of the regulation must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.
   According to the information available to the Commission, Austria has not yet laid down effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions for infringements of the regulation.

      (1)  OJ L 46 of 17.2.2004, p. 1.


title: Case T-635/16: Order of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — IPA v Commission

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/51

         Order of the General Court of 9 February 2017 — IPA v Commission
   (Case T-635/16) (1)

   (2017/C 112/71)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 428, 21.11.2016.


title: Action brought on 25 September 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-304/95)

text:
No C 299/ 12               EN                         Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 11 . 95
     — failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply                     Action brought on 25 September 1995 by the Commission
          with Article 5 ( 2 ) of the Directive , and                            of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic
     — authorizing the creation of a disposal site for special
          waste in Mainhausen and the construction of a                                                   ( Case C-304/95 )
          motorway near Luneburg without observing the                                                      ( 95/C 299/ 19 )
          procedure prescribed in the Directive ,
     — the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil                      An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
          its obligations under Article 5 and the third                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
          paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and under                    25 September 1995 by the Commission of the European
          Articles 2 , 3 , 5 ( 2 ), 6 ( 2 ), 8 , 9 and 12(1 ) and ( 2 ) of the   Communities, represented by Maria Kondou Durande, of
          Directive ;                                                            its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                                at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                             Kirchberg.
     costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                              The applicant claims that the Court should :
— although the timelimit for the transposition of the
    Directive expired on 3 July 1 988 , the defendant did not                    1 . declare , that by not bringing into force , the laws,
    take any measures until it adopted the 'UVP-Gesetz ' of                           regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     12 January 1990, which entered into force on 1 August                            comply with Council Directive 92/5/EEC of 10 February
     1990 ,                                                                           1992 amending and updating Directive 77/99/EEC on
                                                                                health problems affecting intra-Community trade in
— the duty to inform the Commission provided for in                                   meat products and amending Directive 64/433/EEC ('),
    Article 12 ( 2 ) of the Directive also covers rules enacted                       or at least not notifying those provisions to the
    by the Lander and provisions in force prior to the                                Commission within the prescribed period, the Hellenic
    adoption of the Directive; the existence of paragraph 4                           Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty
    of     the    UVP-Gesetz            shows       that   the   defendant            and Directive 92/5/EEC ;
    presupposes that provisions enacted by the Lander are
    applicable to the field covered by the Directive ,
                                                                                2 . order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
— paragraph 22 of the UVP-Gesetz provides that
    proceedings already commenced are to be completed in
    accordance with its provisions only where they had not                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    yet been publicly notified when the UVP-Gesetz entered
    into force ,                                                                The mandatory nature of the provisions of Article 189 of the
                                                                                Treaty requires the Member States to bring into force the
— in the Commission 's view, all the projects set out under                      provisions necessary for transposing into national law the
    the various letters in points 1 to 1 1 of Annex II to the                   directives of which they are the addressees before the expiry
    Directive are to be regarded as 'classes ' within the                       of the period provided therefor and immediately to notify
    meaning of Article 4 of the Directive . Paragraph 3 of the                  those provisions to the Commission . That period expired on
    UVP-Gesetz sets threshold values or criteria for some ,                      1 January 1993 without the Hellenic Republic bringing into
    but not all , of such classes; for the remaining classes , the               force the necessary provisions or indeed notifying those
    UVP-Gesetz does not make any provision for project                           provisions to the Commission .
    assessment in individual cases ,
— although the defendant has specified , in accordance with                      (') OJ No L 57 , n . 1 .
    the Directive, the documents to be submitted by the
    developer, the provisions in question are applicable only
    ' in so far as the . . . said documents are not defined in
    detail in a legislative provision '. The Commission does
    not share the defendant's view that on a proper
    interpretation of the UVP-Gesetz the rules laid down by
    the specific technical legal provisions are to be applied
    only where their requirements at least correspond to
    those of the UVP-Gesetz,                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail,
                                                                                Mons , by judgment of that Court of 21 September 1995 in
— it cannot be deduced from the documents submitted by                          the case of Universite Catholique de Louvain v. Francine
    the defendant that the obligations imposed by Articles 2 ,                                    Plapied and Danielle Gallez
    3 , 5 ( 2 ), 6 ( 2 ), 8 and 9 of the Directive were complied                                           Case C-305 /95 )
    with in the case of the Mainhausen and Luneburg
                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/20 )
    projects .
(') OJ No L 175 , 5 . 7 . 1985 , p . 40 .
                                                                                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                                European Communities by a judgment of the Cour du


title: Case T-596/11: Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Bricmate v Council (Action for annulment — Dumping — Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China — Definitive anti-dumping duty — Absence of individual concern — Regulatory act entailing implementing measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/11

         Order of the General Court of 21 January 2014 — Bricmate v Council
   (Case T-596/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Dumping - Imports of ceramic tiles originating in China - Definitive anti-dumping duty - Absence of individual concern - Regulatory act entailing implementing measures - Inadmissibility)
   2014/C 78/21
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Bricmate AB (Stockholm, Sweden) (represented by: C. Dackö, A. Willems and S. De Knop, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, assisted initially by G. Berrisch and A. Polcyn, and subsequently by A. Polcyn, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. França and A. Stobiecka-Kuik, acting as Agents); Cerame-Unie AISBL (Brussels, Belgium); Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Azulejos y Pavimentos Cerámicos (ASCER) (Castellón de la Plana, Spain); Confindustria Ceramica (Sassuolo, Italy); Casalgrande Padana SpA (Casalgrande, Italy); Etruria Design Srl (Modena, Italy) (represented by: V. Akritidis and Y. Melin, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 917/2011 of 12 September 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2011 L 238, p. 1).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               Bricmate AB shall bear its own costs and shall pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

               4.

               Cerame-Unie AISBL, Asociación Española de Fabricantes de Azulejos y Pavimentos Cerámicos (ASCER), Confindustria Ceramica, Casalgrande Padana SpA and Etruria Design Srl shall bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case T-152/08: Action brought on 21 April 2008 — Kido Industrial v OHIM — Amberes (SCORPIONEXO)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/20

         Action brought on 21 April 2008 — Kido Industrial v OHIM — Amberes (SCORPIONEXO)
   (Case T-152/08)
   (2008/C 158/34)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kido Industrial Ltd (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Mall, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Amberes, SA
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment in their entirety of the decision of the Board of Appeal No R 0287/2007-1 and of the decision of the Opposition Division No B 855 728 and

               —

               Order that Amberes pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kido Industrial Ltd.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SCORPIONEXO’ (registration application No 3.886.249) for goods in Classes 9 and 28.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Amberes, SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative marks (No 339.142, No 499.599, No 499.600 and No 339.140) and international figurative marks (No 206.346 and No 206.347) composed of the design of a scorpion and the word ‘ESCORPION’, for goods in Classes 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, 21 and 28; and in Classes 22, 24, 25 and 26 respectively. Spanish word mark ‘ESCORPION’ (No 555.764) for goods in Class 25. Community word mark ‘ESCORPION’ (No 778.217) for goods in Classes 22, 24, 25 and 26.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The Opposition Division, founding its decision solely on the earlier Spanish figurative mark No 339.142 allowed the opposition in respect of goods in Classes 9 and 28, and refused entirely the application for registration in respect of those goods.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-285/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varnenski administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 June 2011 — Bonik EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ , Varna

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varnenski administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 8 June 2011 — Bonik EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’, Varna
   (Case C-285/11)
   2011/C 238/13
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varnenski administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Bonik EOOD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’, Varna

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can the concept ‘absence of actual supply’ be inferred by interpretation from the provisions of Articles 178(a) and (b), 14, 62, 63, 167 and 168 of Directive 2006/112 (1) and, if so, is ‘absence of actual supply’ coextensive, as regards its definition, with the concept ‘tax evasion’ or is it included in that concept? What does the concept ‘tax evasion’ cover within the meaning of the Directive?

               2.

               In the light of the definition of ‘tax evasion’ and of recitals 26 and 59 in the preamble in conjunction with Article 178(b) of the Directive, does the Directive require that the formalities be expressly laid down by means of legislation in the form of an act of the Member State’s highest legislative body or does it allow those formalities not to be laid down by means of legislation, but to constitute an administrative (and tax investigation) practice and case-law? May formalities be introduced by legislative acts of the administrative authorities and/or by instructions of the administration?

               3.

               If it is a concept which differs from ‘tax evasion’ and is not covered by the definition of the latter, does ‘absence of actual supply’ constitute a formality as referred to in Article 178(b) or a measure as referred to in recital 59 in the preamble to the Directive, the introduction of which results in refusal of the right of deduction and jeopardises the neutrality of VAT, a fundamental principle of the common system of value added tax which was introduced by the relevant Community legislation?

               4.

               Is it permissible to lay down formalities for taxable persons according to which they must provide evidence of supplies which preceded the supply between them (that is, the final customer and his supplier) in order for the supply to be deemed to have been actually carried out, if the authority does not dispute that the persons concerned (the final suppliers) have carried out downstream supplies of the same goods in the same quantities to downstream customers?

               5.

               Under the common system of value added tax and the provisions of Articles 168 and 178 of Directive 2006/112, is the right of the trader to recognition of VAT payments in respect of a given transaction

                           (a)

                           to be assessed solely in relation to the specific transaction to which the trader is party, having regard to the trader’s intention to be a party to the transaction, and/or

                           (b)

                           to be assessed taking account of all transactions, including upstream and downstream transactions, which form a supply chain of which the transaction in question is part, having regard to the intentions of the other parties in the chain, which the trader does not know and/or about which he cannot find out, or to the acts and/or omissions of the issuer of the invoice and of the other parties in the chain, namely his upstream suppliers, whom the person to whom the supply is made cannot control and of whom he cannot demand particular conduct, and/or

                           (c)

                           to be assessed taking account of fraudulent acts and intentions of other parties in the chain, of whose participation the trader did not know and about whose acts or intentions it cannot be established whether he was able to find out, regardless of whether those acts or intentions date from before or after a given transaction?

               6.

               Depending on the answer to question 5: Are transactions such as those at issue in the main proceedings to be regarded as supplies for consideration as referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2006/112 or as part of the taxable person’s economic activity within the meaning of Article 9(1) of the Directive?

               7.

               Is it permissible for transactions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which were properly documented and declared for VAT purposes by the supplier, in respect of which the customer has in fact acquired the right of ownership of the goods invoiced and there are no indications as to whether he actually received the goods from a person who was not the issuer of the invoice, not to be regarded as supplies for consideration as referred to in Article 2 of Directive 2006/112 merely because the supplier was not found at the address indicated and did not produce the documents requested during the tax investigation or did not provide evidence to the tax authorities for all the circumstances under which the supplies were carried out, including the origin of the goods sold?

               8.

               Does it constitute a permissible measure for the purpose of ensuring the collection of tax and preventing tax evasion that the right of deduction is made dependent on the conduct of the supplier and/or his upstream suppliers?

               9.

               Depending on the answers to questions 2, 3 and [4]: Do measures of the tax authorities such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which lead to exclusion of the VAT arrangements in relation to the transactions concluded by a bona fide trader, infringe the principles of Community law of proportionality, equal treatment and legal certainty?

               10.

               Depending on the answers to the above questions: In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, does the person to whom the supplies are made have a right to deduct the tax invoiced to him by the suppliers?

      (1)  OJ L 347, p. 1;


title: Case C-286/01: Action brought on 19 July 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 245/18              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          1.9.2001
Under Article 12(4) the Member States are to establish a                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
system to monitor the incidental capture and killing of the
animal species listed in Annex IV(a). The Swedish legislation            —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
does not cover all the species listed in Annex IV(a).                          within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
                                                                               administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Council Directive 98/18/EC (1) of 17 March 1998 on
Under Article 15 Member States are required to prohibit the                    safety rules and standards for passenger ships, the Portu-
use of methods and forms of capture etc listed in Annex VI of                  guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the species listed in Annex Va, and in cases where, in                         the third paragraph of Article 249 of the EC Treaty and
accordance with Article 16, derogations are applied, of the                    Article 14 of Directive 98/18/EC;
species listed in Annex IVa. The right to derogate from the
prohibition in Article 15 is limited to the situations listed in         —     in the alternative, declare that, by failing to communicate
Article 16. Under Swedish law, however, the government and                     such measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Repub-
authorities have a right to investigate freely in certain cases                lic failed to fulfil its obligations under the same provisions;
where derogations are to be granted from the rules on                          and
prohibition laid down by Article 15.
                                                                         —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Article 16(1) lists the situations in which it is possible to
derogate from the rules in Articles 12 to 14 and 15(a) and (b).          Pleas in law and main arguments
A general condition for allowing a derogation is that there is
no satisfactory alternative and that the derogation is not
detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the                 The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their           of Article 249 requires Member States to adopt the measures
natural range. In addition, one of the reasons in Article 12(1)(a)       necessary to transpose directives addressed to them into their
to (e) must obtain. For reasons of legal certainty it is necessary       domestic law. Despite the expiry of that period, which is laid
that the situations and requirements set out in a rule on                down in Article 14(1) of Directive 98/18/EC, and despite the
derogation such as Article 16 be transposed verbatim into                specific notification requirement provided for in Article 4(2)
national rules or that there be a direct reference to the directive.     of the directive, the Portuguese Republic has not brought into
Under the Swedish legislation the government can allow                   force the necessary provisions and, in any event, has not
derogations on the basis of various considerations. The                  communicated them to the Commission.
Swedish rules on derogation therefore do not conform to
Article 16 and nor do they refer to those provisions in the
directive.                                                               (1) OJ 1998 L 144, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 305, 8.11.1997, p. 42.
                                                                         Action brought on 19 July 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-286/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 245/32)
Action brought on 17 July 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                             Republic                                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 July
                                                                         2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by P. Nemitz and B. Mongin, acting as Agents.
                         (Case C-282/01)
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2001/C 245/31)
                                                                         —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                               within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 July                    Directive 98/10/EC (1), and in particular Article 6(3) and
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                            (4) and Articles 10, 21 and 26, the French Republic has
represented by Bernard Mongin and Francisco de Sousa Fialho,                   failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 32 of that
acting as Agents.                                                              directive and Article 249 of the EC Treaty; and
 ---pagebreak--- 1.9.2001               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 245/19
—     Order the French Government to pay the costs.                      2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by P. Nemitz and B. Mongin, acting as Agents.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
Article 32 of Directive 98/10/EC provides that Member States                   within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
are to bring into force within the prescribed period the laws,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply                  Directive 97/51/EC (1), the French Republic has failed to
with this Directive by 30 June 1998 and forthwith inform the                   fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive and
Commission thereof.                                                            Article 249 EC; and
                                                                         —     Order the French Government to pay the costs.
There is no question but that the French authorities must
adopt the provisions necessary to comply with Article 6(3)
and (4) and Articles 10, 21 and 26 of the directive.                     Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Article 3 of Directive 97/51/EC provides that Member States
(1) Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council     are to bring into force within the prescribed period the laws,
    of 26 February 1998 on the application of open network               regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply
    provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for      with this Directive by 31 December 1997 and forthwith
    telecommunications in a competitive environment (OJ 1998             inform the Commission thereof.
    L 101, p. 24).
                                                                         There is no question but that the French authorities must adopt
                                                                         the provisions necessary to comply with first subparagraph of
                                                                         the second indent in Article 4 and Articles 6(1) and (3)(a) and
                                                                         10(4) of Council Directive 92/44/EEC of 5 June 1992 on the
                                                                         application of open network provision to leased lines (2), as
Action brought on 19 July 2001 by the Commission of                      amended by Directive 97/51/EC.
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                         The Commission has not yet been informed of any measures
                         (Case C-287/01)                                 adopted to that effect by the French authorities.
                        (2001/C 245/33)                                  (1) Directive 97/51/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                             of 6 October 1997 amending Council Directives 90/387/EEC and
                                                                             92/44/EEC for the purpose of adaptation to a competitive
An action against French Republic was brought before the                     environment in telecommunications (OJ 1997 L 295, p. 23).
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 July                  (2) OJ L 165, 19.6.1992, p. 27.


title: Case C-253/10: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 19 May 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/27

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 19 May 2011 — European Commission v Slovak Republic
   (Case C-253/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/54
   Language of the case: Slovak
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 195, 17.7.2010.


title: Case T-530/10: Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Reber v OHIM — Klusmeier (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/42

         Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Reber v OHIM — Klusmeier (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM)
   (Case T-530/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/77
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Reber (Bad Reichenhall, Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler and M. Geitz, laywers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ms Anna Klusmeier (Bielefed, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 September 2010 in Case R 363/2008-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Predecessor in title of Ms Anna Klusmeier.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart PREMIUM’ for goods in Classes 30 and 32.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German figurative marks which contain the word element ‘W. Amadeus Mozart’ for the following goods and sservices: bakers’ wares, confectionery, chocolate confectionery and sugar confectionery, catering in a café and teashop.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2)(1) in conjunction with Article 42(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since the evidence of use put forward by the applicant is a concrete indication of the form of use of the mark cited in opposition ‘W. Amadeus Mozart’, and of Article 15(1)(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since it was proven that the mark cited in opposition is clearly used as a trade mark.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case C-356/06: Action brought on 29 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/7

         Action brought on 29 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-356/06)
   (2006/C 249/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Schima, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003 amending Council Directive 96/82/EC on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1), or by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired on 1 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97


title: Case C-489/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen by order of that court of 28 September 2004 in the case of Alexander Jehle and Weinhaus Kiderlen against Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen by order of that court of 28 September 2004 in the case of Alexander Jehle and Weinhaus Kiderlen against Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-489/04)
   (2005/C 45/25)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht (Administrative Court) Sigmaringen (Fourth Chamber) (Germany) of 28 September 2004, received at the Court Registry on 29 November 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Alexander Jehle and Weinhaus Kiderlen against Land Baden-Württemberg on the following questions:

               1.

               Are Articles 1 to 12 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 (1) of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive oil (OJ 2002 L 155, p. 27), amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1176/2003 of 1 July 2003 (OJ 2003 L 164, p. 12), to be construed as meaning that those provisions also lay down rules governing the presentation of unpackaged olive oils and olive-pomace oils to final consumers?

               2.

               Is the first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive oil (OJ 2002 L 155, p. 27), amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1176/2003 of 1 July 2003 (OJ 2003 L 164, p. 12), to be construed as containing a prohibition of the presentation of unpackaged olive oils and olive-pomace oils to final consumers?

               3.

               If relevant, is the first paragraph of Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1019/2002 of 13 June 2002 on marketing standards for olive oil (OJ 2002 L 155, p. 27), amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1176/2003 of 1 July 2003 (OJ 2003 L 164, p. 12), to be construed restrictively as meaning that, while it does contain a prohibition of the presentation of unpackaged olive oils and olive-pomace oils to the final consumer, that prohibition does not apply to the sale of unpackaged olive oils and olive-pomace oils effected under the ‘Bag in the Box procedure’?

      (1)  OJ L 155, p. 27.


C 94/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 28.3.98
      Removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (1)                     Removal from the register of Case C-79/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/33)                                                      (98/C 94/37)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-120/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-79/97: (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf):          a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München):
FRUKO-Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Hauptzollamt Emme-               Happy Sports Michl OHG v. Finanzamt Landshut.
rich.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 180, 22.6.1996.
                                                                         Removal from the register of Case C-99/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-300/96 ( )1
                                                                                (98/C 94/38)
                         (98/C 94/34)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                removal from the register of Case C-99/97: (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-300/96 (Reference for         a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien):
a preliminary ruling from the Schleswig-Holsteinisches            Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medien-
Verwaltungsgericht): Erika Reimer v. Amt für Land- und            wesen v. TV Spielfilm Verlag Gesellschaft mbH.
Wasserwirtschaft Flensburg.
                                                                  (1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.
(1) OJ C 336, 9.11.1996.
                                                                        Removal from the register of Case C-135/97 (1)
      Removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (1)                                       (98/C 94/39)
                         (98/C 94/35)
                                                                  By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
                                                                  of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           removal from the register of Case C-135/97: (Reference
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht
removal from the register of Case C-345/96 (Reference for         Wien): Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im
a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Nieder-        Medienwesen v. MVF Magazin-Verlag am Fleetrand
sachsen): Landeshauptstadt Hannover v. Almut Sattler.             Gesellschaft mbH.
(1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.                                          (1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
      Removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (1)                    Removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (1)
                         (98/C 94/36)                                                      (98/C 94/40)
By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court           By order of 1 December 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-414/96 (Reference for         removal from the register of Case C-223/97 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hamburg):             a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): HDM
Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Ham-               Flugservice GesmbH. v. Hauptverband der österreichischen
burg, intervener: Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.                       Sozialversicherungsträger.
(1) OJ C 131, 26.4.1997.                                          (1) OJ C 228, 26.7.1997.


title: Order of the President of the General Court of 30 June 2010 — Victoria Sánchez v Parliament and Commission (Affaire T-61/10 R) (Application for interim measures — Disregard of formal requirements — Not admissible)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/46

         Order of the President of the General Court of 30 June 2010 — Victoria Sánchez v Parliament and Commission
   (Affaire T-61/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Disregard of formal requirements - Not admissible)
   2010/C 221/76
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Fernando Marcelino Victoria Sánchez (Seville, Spain) (represented initially by N. Domínguez Varela, then by P. Suarez Plácido, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by N. Lorenz, N. Görlitz and P. López-Carceller, acting as Agents); and European Commission (represented by L. Lozano Palacios and I. Martínez del Peral, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for interim measures to safeguard the applicant's physical safety, his fundamental rights and those of European citizens who might be affected.

      Operative part

               1)

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2)

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-115/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe sp. z o.o. v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych (Social security — Determination of the legislation applicable — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(2)(b) — Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States — Successive employment contracts — Employer established in the Member State of habitual residence of the worker — Employment performed exclusively in other Member States)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 4 October 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Poland) — Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe sp. z o.o. v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych
   (Case C-115/11) (1)

   (Social security - Determination of the legislation applicable - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(2)(b) - Person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States - Successive employment contracts - Employer established in the Member State of habitual residence of the worker - Employment performed exclusively in other Member States)
   2012/C 366/17
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie — Interpretation of Article 14(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), as amended — Delimitation between the concepts of ‘person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States’ and ‘posted worker’ — Worker employed by an undertaking established in his Member State of origin and carrying out his work exclusively in other Member States of the European Union, whilst retaining his residence and the centre of his vital interests in his State of origin

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 14(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a person who, under successive employment contracts stating the place of employment to be the territory of several Member States, in fact works during the term of each of those contracts only on the territory of one of those States at a time, cannot fall within the concept of ‘a person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States’, within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.


title: Case C-406/06: Action brought on 1 September 2006 — Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/33

         Action brought on 1 September 2006 — Landtag Schleswig-Holstein v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-406/06)
   (2006/C 294/57)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Landtag Schleswig-Holstein (represented by: S. Laskowski and J. Caspar, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction and that the action is admissible; in the alternative, refer the action to the Court of First Instance under the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice (2005);

               —

               annul the Commission decisions of 10 March 2006 (JUR (2006) 55023) and of 23 June 2006 (SG/E/3MM/flD (2006) 6175);

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant contests the Commission decision of 10 March 2006 and the decision of 23 June 2006 notified on 26 March 2006, each refusing the application of the Landtag Schleswig-Holstein (assembly of the Land of Schleswig-Holstein) for full access to internal Commission document SEC (2005) 420 of 22 March 2005. Document SEC (2005) 420 contains the legal grounds for the choice of Article 95 EC as the legal basis for Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, (1) and is referred to in the grounds of the Commission proposal for the directive COM (2005) 438 final (p. 6). That document was requested by the science department of the Landtag of Schleswig-Holstein for the preparation of a legal opinion on the possible effects of Directive 2006/24/EC on parliamentary privilege.
   The applicant claims that the adverse decisions and the refusal to grant full access to the document at issue are subject to the following grounds for invalidity as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 230 EC:

               —

               breach of the duty to cooperate in good faith under Article 10 EC in conjunction with Article 1(2) EU or breach of the right of access to the document under Article 255 EC and Article 2(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on access to information in conjunction with Article 10 EC and Article 1(2) EC; and

               —

               misuse of powers.

         By virtue of Article 10 EC in conjunction with Article 1(2) EC, the Commission is under an obligation to grant the Landtag of Schleswig-Holstein, as an institution of a Member State, access to the document sought, within the scope of the mutual duties to cooperate in good faith and in compliance with the principle of transparency, since there is strong public and parliamentary interest in the full disclosure of the document.
   In addition the right to full access to the document at issue is based on Article 255 EC and Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1049/2001 on access to information in conjunction with Article 10 EC and Article 1(2) EU, and the complaint is made that the Commission incorrectly based its refusal to grant access to the document on the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 and misused its powers, since disclosure of the document would not undermine the protection of the Commission's legal advice.

      (1)  OJ L 105 of 13.4.2006, p. 54.


title: Case C-270/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/24/EC — Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services — Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations — Non-compliance — Article 260 TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Imposition of a lump sum payment)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 May 2013 — European Commission v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-270/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/24/EC - Retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of electronic communications services - Judgment of the Court establishing a failure to fulfil obligations - Non-compliance - Article 260 TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Imposition of a lump sum payment)
   2013/C 225/09
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Tufvesson and D. Maidani and by F. Coudert, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and C. Meyer-Seitz, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 260 TFEU — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-185/09 Commission v Sweden — Application for a penalty to be imposed

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court in Case C-185/09 Commission v Sweden [2010] ECR I-14 concerning the failure to transpose into Swedish law Directive 2006/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks and amending Directive 2002/58/EC, and by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that directive, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the European Commission, to the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum payment of EUR 3 000 000;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-326/12 ( OJ C 311, 13.10.2012, p. 8 )

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/25

         Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-326/12
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 311 of 13 October 2012, p. 8
      )
   2012/C 343/43
   The OJ notice in Case T-326/12 Al Toun and Al Toun Group v Council should read as follows:

      Action brought on 19 July 2012 — Al Toun and Al Toun Group v Council

      (Case T-326/12)
      2012/C 343/43
      Language of the case: Bulgarian

         Parties

         Applicants: Salim Georges Al Toun and Al Toun Group (represented by: Stanislav Koev, lawyer)

         Defendant: Council of the European Union

         Form of order sought

      The applicants claim that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare the present action admissible and well founded in its entirety, and grant all the pleas raised in the application;

                  —

                  allow the present action to be examined under the accelerated procedure;

                  —

                  declare that the contested measures may be annulled in part, since the part of the measures to be annulled is removable from the measures as a whole;

                  —

                  annul Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP of 1 December 2011 concerning restrictive measures against Syria, and Council Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP of 14 May 2012, in so far as Mr Salim Al Toun and the Al Toun Group have been added to the list set out in the annex to Decision 2011/782/CFSP;

                  —

                  annul Regulation (EU) No 36/2012 of 18 January 2012 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Syria and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012 of 14 May 2012, in so far as Mr Salim Al Toun and the Al Toun Group have been added to the list set out in Annex II to Council Regulation (EU) No 36/2012;

                  —

                  order the Council to pay all of the applicants’ costs and legal fees related to their defence in the present proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      In support of their action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

                  1.

                  By their first plea in law, the applicants allege a serious infringement of the rights of the defence and of the right to a fair hearing, since the applicants were not warned about the contested measures, which they learned of via the media, or presented with any conclusive evidence or reference points to justify their inclusion on the list of persons to be fined. In that regard, the burden of proof is on the Council, which is required to justify the imposition of the restrictive measures.

                  2.

                  By their second plea in law, the applicants allege an infringement of the duty to state reasons. The Council merely made unfounded claims in the contested measures and infringed that duty, which is imposed on the institutions of the European Union by Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 296 TFEU and Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In that regard, the applicants submit that the Council relied on the imprecise notion of participation in the regime, of which there is no definition in the Council measures regarding the situation in Syria. In the light of the lack of clear and precise grounds on the part of the Council, the General Court is not able to review the lawfulness of the contested measures.

                  3.

                  By their third plea in law, the applicants allege an infringement of the right to effective legal protection, since the infringement of the duty to state reasons prevented them from preparing an effective defence, as provided for in Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 215 TFEU, and Articles 41 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

                  4.

                  By their fourth plea in law, the applicants allege an error of assessment on the part of the Council, since the applicant, Mr Salim Al Toun, was wrongly identified as a Venezuelan citizen, which is not the case, and the Al Toun Group has never participated, since its creation, in transactions related to oil or oil products, contrary to what is stated in the contested measures.

                  5.

                  By their fifth plea in law, the applicants allege an infringement of the right to property, of the principle of proportionality and of the freedom to pursue an economic activity, laid down in Article 1 of the additional protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, since, by adopting Implementing Decision 2012/256/CFSP, and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 410/2012, the Council unduly deprived the applicants of the possibility of making peaceful use of their property, which puts their existence and their physical survival at risk.

                  6.

                  By their sixth plea in law, the applicants allege a flagrant infringement of the right to the protection of the reputation, provided for in Articles 8 and 10(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, since the inclusion of the applicants’ names in the contested measures has unlawfully ruined their reputation in Syrian society, among their friends, in the religious community and among trading partners.


title: Case C-423/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Delphi Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Classification for customs purposes — Electrical connectors — Subheading 853669 — Plugs and sockets)

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany)) — Delphi Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
   (Case C-423/10) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Classification for customs purposes - Electrical connectors - Subheading 8536 69 - Plugs and sockets)
   2011/C 204/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Delphi Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1), Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 (OJ 2005 L 286, p. 1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006 (OJ 2006 L 301, p. 1) — Electrical connectors, intended to be crimped to the ends of electric wire and housed in plastic casing in order to join two cables — Classification under subheading 8536 69 of the Combined Nomenclature

      Operative part of the judgment

   Subheading 8536 69 of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended with respect to 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1549/2006 of 17 October 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that electrical connectors, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are not excluded from that subheading on the ground that they do not ensure the insulation of the connection at the connection point or that they represent only some of the plugs and sockets manufactured subsequently, provided that they permit multi-way connection, for instance between appliances, cables and connector boards, simply by plugging the attached plugs into the attached sockets with no assembly work required.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-554/07: Action brought on 11 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/36

         Action brought on 11 December 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland
   (Case C-554/07)
   (2008/C 51/59)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that by failing to transpose correctly into Irish legislation Article 13 of Directive 2006/112 (including Annex I to the directive) and consequently by excluding from the scope of the tax all economic activities in which the State, local authorities and other bodies governed by public law engage, with certain limited exceptions, Ireland has failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 2, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (1);

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In Ireland, the State and local authorities are treated as taxable persons only in so far as a specific order to that effect has been made by the Minister for Finance. In the Commission's view that situation is contrary to the scheme laid down in Article 13 of the VAT directive in several respects. First, no provision is made for the taxation of public bodies where they act other than in their capacity as public authorities. Secondly, no general provision is made for the taxation of public bodies where they act in their capacity as public authorities but engage in an economic activity whose non-taxation would result in a significant distortion of competition. The taxation of public bodies is wholly at the discretion of the Minister for Finance; no criteria for his decision are contained in the relevant provisions. Thirdly, no provision is made for taxation of the activities listed in Annex I to the VAT directive.

      (1)  OJ L 347, p. 1.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 March2004 in Joined Cases C-480/00 to 482/00, C-484/00, C-489/00 to C-491/00and C-497/00 to C-499/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunaleamministrativo regionale del Lazio): Azienda Agricola Ettore Ribaldi v Aziendadi Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro,del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica and Others (Agriculture — Commonorganisation of the markets — Milk and milk products — Additional levy onmilk — Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 — Reference quantities — Expost correction — Notification of producers)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 25 March 2004
   in Joined Cases C-480/00 to 482/00, C-484/00, C-489/00 to C-491/00 and C-497/00 to C-499/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio): Azienda Agricola Ettore Ribaldi v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica and Others (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 - Reference quantities - Ex post correction - Notification of producers)
   (2004/C 106/02)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Joined Cases C-480/00 to 482/00, C-484/00, C-489/00 to C-491/00 and C-497/00 to C-499/00 – reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Azienda Agricola Ettore Ribaldi and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica, intervener: Caseificio Nazionale Novarese Soc. coop. arl (C-480/00), between Domenico Buttiglione and Others and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (C-481/00), between Azienda Agricola Ettore Raffa and Others and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-482/00), between Carlo Balestreri and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica, intervener: Parmalat SpA (C-484/00) between Azienda Agricola 'Corte delle Piacentine' and Others and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA) (C-489/00), between Cesare e Michele Filippi ss and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-490/00), between Cooperativa Produttori Latte Associati della Lessinia arl and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-491/00), between Azienda Agricola Simone e Stefano Gonal di Gonzato and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-497/00), between Azienda Agricola Gianluigi Cerati e Maria Ceriali ss and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-498/00), and between Nicolò Musini, acting for l'Azienda Agricola Tenuta di Fassia, and Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica, intervener: Cooperativa Produttori Latte Soc. coop. arl (C-499/00), on the interpretation and validity of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1), and of Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12), the Court (Sixth Chamber) – composed of: V. Skouris (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges, P. Léger, Advocate General, L. Hewlett and H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrators, for the Registrar, has given judgment on 25 March 2004, in which it:

               1.

               On a proper construction of Articles 1 and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector, and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State, after checks have been carried out, to correct the individual reference quantities allocated to each producer and, after the unused reference quantities have been reallocated, to recalculate in consequence the additional levies payable, after the final date for payment of those levies for the production period concerned.

               2.

               Regulations Nos 3950/92 and 536/92 are to be interpreted as requiring that the original allocation of individual reference quantities and any later alteration to them should be notified to the producers concerned by the competent national authorities.
               The principle of legal certainty demands that that communication should be of such a nature as to give the natural or legal persons concerned all information relating to the original allocation of their individual reference quantity or later alteration to it. It is for the national court to determine, on the basis of the facts before it, whether that is so in the cases in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 108 of 7.4.2001.

      OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.

      OJ C 134 of 30.5.2001.


title: Case C-567/08: Action brought on 19 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/38

         Action brought on 19 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-567/08)
   (2009/C 44/64)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and V. Perre, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1) and, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxemburg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of Directive 2005/36/EC expired on 20 October 2007. At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary for transposition of the Directive or, in any event, had not notified the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.


title: Case C-442/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 August 2013 — Sarah Nagy v Marcel Nagy

text:
               9.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 325/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 August 2013 — Sarah Nagy v Marcel Nagy
   (Case C-442/13)
   2013/C 325/23
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sarah Nagy

      Defendant: Marcel Nagy

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are two proceedings brought ‘between the same parties’, within the meaning of Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, (1) where in one set of proceedings the child makes a claim against the father for past and current maintenance, and the father, in divorce proceedings, seeks a determination of his maintenance obligation relating to that child and of payments to be made to the mother after the divorce?

               2.

               If the answer to that question is in the affirmative: Where, in one set of proceedings, the maintenance creditor makes a claim for current maintenance and, in another set of proceedings, the maintenance debtor seeks to have his obligation to pay current maintenance postponed to a later date, will the proceedings then involve ‘the same cause of action’, within the meaning of Article 12 of the regulation, from the later date?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 7, p. 1.


title: Case T-322/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2007 — Carsten Brinkmann v OHIM — Terra Networks (Terranus) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for Community work mark Terranus — Earlier Community and national figurative mark terra — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/39

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2007 — Carsten Brinkmann v OHIM — Terra Networks (Terranus)
   (Case T-322/05) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for Community work mark Terranus - Earlier Community and national figurative mark terra - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2007/C 95/79)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Carsten Brinkmann (Cologne, Germany) (represented by K. van Bebber, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by T. Eichenberg and subsequently by G. Scheider, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Terra Networks, SA (Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 June 2005 (Case R 1145/2004-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Terra Network, SA and Carsten Brinkmann.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case C-333/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative d'Appel de Lyon — France) — Régie Networks v Direction de Contrôle Fiscal Rhône-Alpes Bourgogne (State aid — Aid scheme to support local radio stations — Financed by a parafiscal charge on advertising companies — Favourable decision by the Commission at the conclusion of the preliminary stage of the review procedure under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) — Aid that may be compatible with the common market — Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3) EC) — Decision challenged on the ground that it is unlawful — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Assessment of the facts — Whether the parafiscal charge is compatible with the EC Treaty)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/14

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 December 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative d'Appel de Lyon — France) — Régie Networks v Direction de Contrôle Fiscal Rhône-Alpes Bourgogne
   (Case C-333/07) (1)

   (State aid - Aid scheme to support local radio stations - Financed by a parafiscal charge on advertising companies - Favourable decision by the Commission at the conclusion of the preliminary stage of the review procedure under Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) - Aid that may be compatible with the common market - Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(3) EC) - Decision challenged on the ground that it is unlawful - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Assessment of the facts - Whether the parafiscal charge is compatible with the EC Treaty)
   (2009/C 44/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour Administrative d'Appel de Lyon
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Régie Networks

      Defendant: Direction de Contrôle Fiscal Rhône-Alpes Bourgogne
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour Administrative d'Appel de Lyon — Validity of Commission Decision No N 679/97 of 10 November 1997 by which the Commission decided not to raise any objections to amendments made to the radio broadcasting aid scheme introduced by Decree 92-1053 of 30 September 1992 (JORF No 228 of 1 October 1992) (SG(97) D/9265) — Parafiscal charge on advertisements broadcast on sound radio and television in French territory, the revenue from which is allocated to a fund to support radio broadcasting — Aid scheme which benefits only national undertakings — Applicability to that scheme — and to the charge which funds it — of the exception provided for in Article 87(3)(c) EC
   Operative part of the judgment
   The decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 10 November 1997 not to raise any objections to the new version of an aid scheme to support local radio stations (State aid No N 679/97 — France) is invalid.
   The effects of the declaration that that decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 10 November 1997 is invalid are suspended pending the adoption of a new decision by the Commission under Article 88 EC. Those effects are to be preserved for a period not exceeding two months from the date of delivery of this judgment if the Commission decides to adopt such a new decision under Article 88(3) EC, and for a reasonable further period if the Commission decides to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC. Only undertakings which, prior to the date of delivery of this judgment, brought legal proceedings or made an equivalent complaint regarding the levying of the parafiscal charge on advertising broadcast by sound radio or television, established by Article 1 of Decree No 97-1263 of 29 December 1997 creating a parafiscal charge for the benefit of a fund to support radio broadcasting, are excluded from the temporal limitation of the effects of this judgment.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 8.9.2007.


title: Case T-671/13: Order of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — PAN Europe and Confédération paysanne v Commission

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/26

         Order of the General Court of 12 May 2015 — PAN Europe and Confédération paysanne v Commission
   (Case T-671/13) (1)

   (2015/C 228/35)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 52, 22.2.2014.


title: Case T-413/06 P: Appeal brought on 22 December 2006 against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2006 in Case F-53/06, Gualtieri v Commission

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/42

         Appeal brought on 22 December 2006 against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2006 in Case F-53/06, Gualtieri v Commission
   (Case T-413/06 P)
   (2007/C 42/73)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Appellant: Claudia Gualtieri (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by M. Gualtieri and P. Gualtieri, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annulment of the contested order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 9 October 2006, and a declaration that the Civil Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present appeal has been brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union of 9 October 2006 in Case F-53/06, by which the Civil Service Tribunal declared that it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae to make a ruling in the dispute between the applicant — a national expert on secondment — and the Commission.
   In support of her appeal, the appellant alleges that the contested measure is based on a superficial and incorrect understanding of Article 1(2) of the Commission Decision concerning the rules applicable to seconded national experts (SNEs). On that point, she refers to Article 7(a), (f) and (g), Article 11(1) and (3), Article 12(1) and (2), Article 13(1), Article 14 and Article 15 of that Decision.
   According to the appellant, it is to be inferred from that multiplicity of provisions that the relationship between a national expert and the home administration remains dormant throughout the period of secondment and that during that period the national expert on secondment is fully integrated in the Commission organisation, for whose exclusive benefit the expert is required to carry out his or her duties.
   Consequently, there can be no doubt that disputes relating to that special employment relationship fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal, the legal position of national experts on secondment being clearly assimilated to that of servants.


title: Case T-315/14: Order of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé Nutrition (Praebiotik) (Community trade mark — Application for revocation — Withdrawal of the registration — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               21.12.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 429/24

         Order of the General Court of 29 October 2015 — Hipp v OHIM — Nestlé Nutrition (Praebiotik)
   (Case T-315/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for revocation - Withdrawal of the registration - No need to adjudicate))
   (2015/C 429/31)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hipp & Co. (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, A. Wagner and B. Brandstätter, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Nestlé Nutrition GmbH (Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2014 (Cases R 1171/2012-4 and R 1326/2012-4) concerning revocation proceedings between Nestlé Nutrition GmbH and Hipp & Co.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the action.

               2.

               Hipp & Co. and Nestlé Nutrition GmbH shall each bear their own costs and half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.