title: Case C-418/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat — France) — Société Papillon v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la function publique (Freedom of establishment — Direct taxation — Corporation tax — Group taxation regime — Resident parent company — Resident sub-subsidiaries held through a non-resident subsidiary)

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 27 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat — France) — Société Papillon v Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la function publique
   (Case C-418/07) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Direct taxation - Corporation tax - Group taxation regime - Resident parent company - Resident sub-subsidiaries held through a non-resident subsidiary)
   (2009/C 19/13)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'Etat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Papillon

      Defendant: Ministère du budget, des comptes publics et de la function publique
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'Etat (France) — Interpretation of Articles 43 and 48 EC — Restriction on freedom of establishment and possible justification for a tax scheme making a distinction depending on whether the French sub-subsidiary of a parent company (also established in France) is held through a subsidiary established in that Member State or established in another Member State and not subject to French corporation tax — Justification based on the coherence of the tax system
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes legislation of a Member State by virtue of which a group tax regime is made available to a parent company which is resident in that Member State and holds subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries which are also resident in that State, but is unavailable to such a parent company if its resident sub-subsidiaries are held through a subsidiary which is resident in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  9 February 2006  in Case C-305/03 Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3), and 16(1) — Transaction within the territory of the country — Sale by auction of works of art imported under the arrangements for temporary importation — Auctioneers' commission)

text:
               8.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 9 February 2006
   in Case C-305/03 Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3), and 16(1) - Transaction within the territory of the country - Sale by auction of works of art imported under the arrangements for temporary importation - Auctioneers' commission)
   (2006/C 86/03)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-305/03 Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, Agent) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Jackson and R. Caudwell, Agents, and N. Paines QC) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 16 July 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the commission received by auctioneers on sales by auction of works of art, antiques and collectors' items imported under the arrangements for temporary importation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3) and 16(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 1999/49/EC of 25 May 1999;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 20.09.2003.


title: Case C-188/02 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2002 against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-92/00 and T-103/00 (not yet published) between Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 191/16                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.8.2002
Appeal brought on 21 May 2002 against the judgment                       Action brought on 27 May 2002 by the Kingdom of the
delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber,                          Netherlands against the Commission of the European
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of                                             Communities
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-92/00 and
T-103/00 (not yet published) between Territorio His-
tórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others                                        (Case C-193/02)
      and Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (2002/C 191/28)
                          (Case C-188/02 P)
                           (2002/C 191/27)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 27 May 2002 by the Kingdom of the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002
                                                                         Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster, acting as agent.
by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-92/00 and T-103/00 between Territorio Histórico de Álava
— Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and Commission of               The applicant claims that the Court should:
the European Communities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 21 May 2002 by
Territorio Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava,             1.    Annul Commission Decision C(2002) 970 of 12 March
represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte                      2002 reducing by 31,3 %, that is to say by
Valiente, Abogados, of Calle Velázquez no 63, Madrid.                         EUR 147 459 365, the assistance granted from the
                                                                               European Social Fund under Commission decisions
                                                                               approving certain programme documents for Com-
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                    munity structural measures in the Netherlands under
                                                                               objectives 1, 2, 3 and 5b;
1.    declare the present appeal admissible and consequently:
                                                                         2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.
2.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      6 March 2002;
3.    itself give final judgment in the matter on the basis of the
      appellant’s pleadings at first instance and, in particular,        Pleas in law and main arguments
      annul the decision of the Commission of 22 December
      1999 inasmuch as the tax credit of 45 % of investment              —     Commission’s lack of competence: The Commission
      and the reduction of the taxable amount provided for by                  bases the financial sanction on an (alleged) infringement
      Alava regional legislation in respect of newly-established               of the obligation imposed on the Netherlands by
      undertakings does not constitute aid within the meaning                  Article 23 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 (1) to
      of Article 87 EC or, if it should be deemed so to be, is                 establish an adequate management and control system in
      existing aid, pursuant to Article 88 EC and Article 1 of                 order to ensure the efficient implementation of the
      the State aid Rules;                                                     programmes. However, Article 24 of Regulation
                                                                               No 2082/93, on which the financial sanction at issue is
4.    in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First            based, does not refer to that obligation but merely
      Instance for judgment, if the Court of Justice should deem               authorises the Commission to reduce or suspend the
      that appropriate;                                                        assistance for the relevant operation or measure if an
                                                                               irregularity occurs ‘in respect of the operation or measure’.
5.    order the Commission to pay the costs in both sets of                    Thus, a financial correction, as referred to in that article,
      proceedings.                                                             may be applied only in the event of irregularities relating
                                                                               to implementation itself or to ‘the nature or conditions
                                                                               for the implementation’ of a (specific) operation or a
                                                                               (specific) measure. At most the financial correction may
                                                                               relate to the amounts established to have been unduly
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                paid; in that connection, therefore, each irregularity must
                                                                               be established individually. A financial correction cannot
                                                                               be based on general failings or defects in the management
are similar to those put forward in Case C-187/02 P.                           and control system governing the implementation of one
                                                                               or (as in this case) several operations or measures. Even if
                                                                               there is a defect in a management and control system,
                                                                               that does not mean that that shortcoming affects the


title: Case C-332/02: Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
9.11.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 274/21
      installations or, in any event, by failing to notify such         Pleas in law and main arguments
      provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Article 15 of this Directive;
                                                                        The obligation on the part of the United Kingdom to take
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                   measures in order to comply with the directive for the entirety
                                                                        of its territory is not disputed.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
                                                                        of the provisions adopted and brought into force to comply
                                                                        with the directive concerned for Gibraltar and since the
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to          Commission is in possession of no other information enabling
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by           it to conclude that the United Kingdom has adopted and
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the           brought into force the necessary provisions, it is compelled to
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period           assume that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such
expired on 1 April 2001 without Ireland havthe conclusions              provisions and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the
of the Commission.ing enacted the provisions necessary to               directive.
comply with the directive referred to in
                                                                        (1 ) OJ L 163, 29.6.1999, p. 41.
( 1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999, p. 1.
Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Com-                         Action brought on 19 September 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the United                  mission of the European Communities against the United
                               Kingdom                                                               Kingdom
                         (Case C-331/02)                                                          (Case C-332/02)
                         (2002/C 274/36)                                                          (2002/C 274/37)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
                                                                        An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 Septem-
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 Septem-
ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        ber 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr X. Lewis, acting as agent, with an address
                                                                        represented by Mr X. Lewis, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        for service in Luxembourg.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The Applicant claims that the Court should:
1)    declare that by failing to adopt and bring into force
      for Gibraltar the laws, regulations and administrative            1)    declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                   and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      1999/30/EC ( 1) of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values               Council Directive 1999/13/EC (1) of 11 March 1999 on
      for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of                     limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds
      nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in ambient air or, in             due to the use of organic solvents in certain activities and
      any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the                  installations or, in any event, by failing to notify such
      Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                     provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom of
      Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil fully its obligations             Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil fully
      under this Directive.                                                   its obligations under Article 15 of this Directive;
2)    order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                        2)    order the United Kingdom to the pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 274/22                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.11.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          —     order the Commission of the European Communities and
                                                                               the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.
The obligation on the part of the United Kingdom to take
measures in order to comply with the directive for the entirety
of its territory is not disputed.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Since the United Kingdom has not informed the Commission
of the provisions adopted and brought into force to comply               For the fifth year running the regulation adopted by the
with the directive concerned for Gibraltar and since the                 Council, identifying the deficit areas for which ‘derived’ prices
Commission is in possession of no other information enabling             for sugar and beet are fixed, did not include Italy, with
it to conclude that the United Kingdom has adopted and                   the result that the ‘ordinary’ intervention price fixed by
brought into force the necessary provisions, it is compelled to          Article 2(1)(a) of the regulation is applicable to Italy.
assume that the United Kingdom has not yet adopted such
provisions and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under the
directive.
                                                                         The criterion used in describing an area as a ‘deficit’ area has
                                                                         been to take as a basis the figures for production and
( 1) OJ L 85, 29.3.1999, p. 1.                                           consumption shown in the balance sheets communicated by
                                                                         the Member States.
                                                                         It is forecast that Italy’s production of sugar will be
                                                                         111 400 tonnes greater than its estimated consumption.
                                                                         The Commission reaches that result by using a criterion
Action brought on 20 September 2002 by the Italian                       for assessing consumption which the Italian Government
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-                     considers to be unlawful and incorrect.
                               munities
                          (Case C-333/02)                                In particular, the calculation of foreseeable consumption did
                                                                         not include sugar used in products intended for export.
                          (2002/C 274/38)
                                                                         The Commission has, therefore, considered that ‘consumption’
                                                                         means solely white sugar used directly in Italy, to the exclusion
                                                                         of sugar used (still in Italy) in the preparation of sugar-based
                                                                         products intended for export.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties and the Council of the European Union was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
20 September 2002 by the Italian Republic, represented by                What has been determined is not, therefore, the ‘demand’ for
Prof. Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, and Giacomo Aiello,               sugar, understood as ‘consumption’ by the market, but rather
Avvocato dello Stato.                                                    consumption stricto sensu in the national territory.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                   That operating method does not appear to be right, since it
                                                                         uses an unduly restrictive definition of consumption.
—     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1129/2002 ( 1) of
      7 June 2002 fixing the derived intervention prices for
      white sugar for the 2002/2003 marketing year (OJ of                (1 ) OJ L 169, 28.6.2002, p. 22.
      28 June 2002), in so far as it fails to fix the derived            (2 ) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1.
      intervention price for white sugar for all areas of Italy and,
      in so far as may be necessary, annul also Article 2(1)(a) of
      Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 (2) of 19 June
      2001;


title: Case C-608/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-117/14: Cargill v Council

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/37

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-117/14: Cargill v Council
   (Case C-608/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, Agent, N. Tuominen, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Cargill SACI, European Commission, European Biodiesel Board (EBB)

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, notified to the Council on 16 September 2016, in Case T-117/14, Cargill SACI v Council of the European Union;

               —

               reject the application at first instance brought by the Applicant for the annulment of the Contested Regulation; and

               —

               order the Applicant to pay the Council's costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Alternatively,

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               reserve costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  First, the General Court applied the wrong legal test when assessing whether the Council had evidence to decide that domestic raw materials prices contained in the records of the relevant Argentinian exporters were sufficiently distorted to justify disregarding them and having recourse to the methodology provided by Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation (1), second paragraph. In doing so, the General Court has imposed too high a burden of proof on the Institution.

               2.

                  Second, the General Court’s finding that the evidence adduced by the Institutions was not sufficient to show that there was an appreciable distortion of the prices of the main raw materials in Argentina as a result of the DET system lacks proper reasoning.

               3.

                  Third, the operative part of the Contested Judgment annulling the anti-dumping duties in so far as they concern the Applicant is disproportionate to the only ground for annulment considered by the General Court and gives undue effects to the finding of illegality.

               4.

               The Council will demonstrate that the Contested Judgment is vitiated by several errors of law affecting its validity. In addition, the Council submits that the facts underlying the Applicant's first plea are sufficiently established so that the Court of Justice can decide on this plea and dismiss the application.

               5.

               The Council therefore respectfully requests that the Contested Judgment should be set aside and the application for annulment of the Contested Regulation by the Applicant at first instance, dismissed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51) (‘Basic Regulation’).


title: Case C-19/16 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 — Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd v European Commission, Council of the European Union (Appeal — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Fight against terrorism — Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban — Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 — Freezing of funds and economic resources of natural and legal persons included in a list drawn up by the United Nations Sanctions Committee — Re-listing of those persons in Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002 after annulment of the original listing — Disappearance of the legal person in the course of the proceedings — Capacity to be a party to judicial proceedings)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 15 June 2017 — Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd v European Commission, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-19/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Fight against terrorism - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban - Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 - Freezing of funds and economic resources of natural and legal persons included in a list drawn up by the United Nations Sanctions Committee - Re-listing of those persons in Annex I to Regulation No 881/2002 after annulment of the original listing - Disappearance of the legal person in the course of the proceedings - Capacity to be a party to judicial proceedings))
   (2017/C 277/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Ghunia Abdrabbah, Taher Nasuf, Sanabel Relief Agency Ltd (represented by: N. Garcia-Lora, Solicitor, and E. Grieves, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Ronkes Agerbeek, D. Gauci and J. Norris-Usher, Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Étienne, J.-P. Hix and H. Marcos Fraile, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Mr Al-Bashir Mohammed Al-Faqih, Mr Ghunia Abdrabbah and Mr Taher Nasuf to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case T-333/13: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Westermann Lernspielverlag v OHIM — Diset (bambinoLÜK) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark bambinoLÜK — Earlier Community figurative mark BAMBINO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/47

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Westermann Lernspielverlag v OHIM — Diset (bambinoLÜK)
   (Case T-333/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark bambinoLÜK - Earlier Community figurative mark BAMBINO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 302/60)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH (Brunswick, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 April 2013 (Case R 1323/2012-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Diset, SA and Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 31.8.2013.


title: Case C-595/15 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC) and Others v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran — List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources — Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 — Legal basis — Meaning of associated entity)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/24

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 22 September 2016 — National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC) and Others v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-595/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran - List of persons and entities subject to the freezing of funds and economic resources - Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 - Legal basis - Meaning of associated entity))
   (2016/C 419/32)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC), National Iranian Oil Company International Affairs Ltd (NIOC International Affairs), Iran Fuel Conservation Organization (IFCO), Karoon Oil & Gas Production Co., Petroleum Engineering & Development Co. (PEDEC), Khazar Exploration and Production Co. (KEPCO), National Iranian Drilling Co. (NIDC), South Zagros Oil & Gas Production Co., Maroun Oil & Gas Co., Masjed-Soleyman Oil & Gas Co. (MOGC), Gachsaran Oil & Gas Co., Aghajari Oil & Gas Production Co. (AOGPC), Arvandan Oil & Gas Co. (AOGC), West Oil & Gas Production Co., East Oil & Gas Production Co. (EOGPC), Iranian Oil Terminals Co. (IOTC), Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ) (represented by: J.-M. Thouvenin, avocat)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders National Iranian Oil Company PTE Ltd (NIOC), National Iranian Oil Company International Affairs Ltd (NIOC International Affairs), Iran Fuel Conservation Organization (IFCO), Karoon Oil & Gas Production Co., Petroleum Engineering & Development Co. (PEDEC), Khazar Exploration and Production Co. (KEPCO), National Iranian Drilling Co. (NIDC), South Zagros Oil & Gas Production Co., Maroun Oil & Gas Co., Masjed-Soleyman Oil & Gas Co. (MOGC), Gachsaran Oil & Gas Co., Aghajari Oil & Gas Production Co. (AOGPC), Arvandan Oil & Gas Co. (AOGC), West Oil & Gas Production Co., East Oil & Gas Production Co. (EOGPC), Iranian Oil Terminals Co. (IOTC) and Pars Special Economic Energy Zone (PSEEZ) to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 59, 15.02.2016.


title: Case C-403/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 — Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/60/EC — River basin management plans — Publication and reporting to the Commission — Public information and consultation — Failure to undertake)

text:
               24.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 366/15

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 4 October 2012 — Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-403/11) (1)

   (Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/60/EC - River basin management plans - Publication and reporting to the Commission - Public information and consultation - Failure to undertake)
   2012/C 366/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented initially by I. Hadjiyannis and G. Valero Jordana, then by B. Simon, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 13(1), (2), (3) and (6), Article (14)(1)(c) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1) — River basin management plans — Public information and consultation — Reporting of those management plans

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that the Kingdom of Spain:

                           —

                           by failing to adopt, by 22 December 2009, river basin management plans, except in the case of the river basin district of Catalonia, and by failing to send to the European Commission and other Member States concerned, by 22 March 2010, copies of those plans, in accordance with Article 13(1) to (3) and (6) and Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as amended by Directive 2008/32/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2008, and

                           —

                           by not having undertaken, by no later than 22 December 2008, except in as regards the river basin districts of Catalonia, the Balearic Islands, Tenerife, Guadiana, Guadalquivir, Andalusian Mediterranean basin, Tinto-Odiel-Piedras, Guadalete-Barbate, Galician coast, Miño-Sil, Douro, Western Cantabria and Eastern Cantabria, the process of public information and consultation concerning the proposed river basin management plans, in accordance with Article 14(1)(c) of that directive,

                     has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case C-530/07: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/271/EEC — Pollution and nuisance — Urban waste water treatment — Articles 3 and 4)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-530/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/271/EEC - Pollution and nuisance - Urban waste water treatment - Articles 3 and 4)
   2009/C 153/16
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and G. Braga da Cruz, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and M. J. Lois, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt in the prescribed period the measures necessary to comply with Art. 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to provide, in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment, the agglomerations of Bacia do Rio Uima (Fiães S. Jorge), Costa de Aveiro, Covilhã, Espinho/Feira, Ponta Delgada, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde and Santa Cita with collection systems, and by failing to subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment, in accordance with Article 4 of that directive, the urban waste water from the agglomerations of Alverca, Bacio do Rio Uima (Fiães S. Jorge), Carvoeiro, Costa de Aveiro, Costa Oeste, Covilhã, Lisbon, Matosinhos, Milfontes, Nazaré/Famalicão, Ponta Delgada, Póvoa de Varzim/Vila do Conde, Santa Cita, Vila Franca de Xira and Vila Real de Santo António, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 15 September 1998 in Case T-23/96 Elsa De Persio v Commission (Official - Reassignment - Request for transfer from the Language Service to Category A - Removal of barriers to such transfers)

text:
24.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 327/21
Gianluigi Valsesia), supported by the Council of the                A. Kalogeropoulos, President of the Chamber, and C. W.
European Union (Agents: initially Yves Cretien, Antonio             Bellamy and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has
Lucidi and Diego Canga Fano, then only Antonio Lucidi               given a judgment on 15 September 1998 a judgment in
and Diego Canga Fano) Ð application, first, for a                   which it:
declaration ordering the Commission to pay the additional
remuneration resulting from the application of the
weighting for Germany calculated on the basis of the cost           1. Dismisses the application;
of living in Berlin for the period from 1 October 1990 to
31 December 1994, as regards the proportion transferred
in German marks, with interest at the rate of 10 % per
                                                                    2. Orders the parties, and the Council, to bear their own
annum and, second, in so far as is necessary, the
                                                                        costs.
annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 March 1995
rejecting the applicants' requests for the payment of that
additional remuneration Ð the Court of First Instance               (1) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996.
(Third Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President,
and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 September 1998 in which it:
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 17 September 1998
2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
                                                                    in Case T-50/96: Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH
                                                                    & Co. KG and Others v Commission of the European
(1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.                                                                      Communities (1)
                                                                    (Action for annulment Ð Importation of high-quality beef
                                                                    (Hilton beef') Ð Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 Ð
                                                                    Article 13 Ð Commission decision refusing remission of
                                                                    import duties Ð Rights of the defence Ð Manifest error
                                                                                of assessment)
                                                                                (98/C 327/37)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 15 September 1998
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
      in Case T-23/96 Elsa De Persio v Commission (1)
(Official Ð Reassignment Ð Request for transfer from the
Language Service to Category A Ð Removal of barriers to             In Case T-50/96: Primex Produkte Import-Export GmbH
                        such transfers)                             & Co. KG, established in Bad Homburg (Germany), Gebr.
                                                                    Kruse GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany),
                        (98/C 327/36)                               Interporc Im- und Export GmbH, established in Hamburg,
                                                                    represented by Georg M. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt,
                                                                    Hamburg and Brussels, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 Rue
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     Mathias Hardt, supported by United Kingdom of Great
                                                                    Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: initially Stephanie
                                                                    Ridley and subsequently John E. Collins and David
In Case T-23/96 Elsa de Persio, an official of the                  Anderson), against Commission of the European
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                 Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) Ð application for
Brussels, represented by Giovanni Petroni and Franco                annulment of the Commission decision of 26 January
Giampietro, of the Rome Bar, and VeÂronique Laurent, of             1996 (Document K(96) 180 final) addressed to the Federal
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                    Republic of Germany and concerning the remission of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Gilles Bouneau, 15                    import duties Ð the Court of First Instance (First
Avenue du Bois, against Commission of the European                  Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, R. M.
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia), supported by               Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; A. Mair,
Council of the European Union (Agents: Diego Canga                  Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Fano and Paolo Cossu) Ð application for annulment of                17 September 1998, in which it:
the Commission's decision refusing to grant her request to
be placed in Category A, annulment of the Commission's
decision of 22 December 1995 reassigning the applicant to           1. Annuls the Commission's decision of 26 January 1996
that institution's Translation Service and, last, an order              addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and
that the Commission should pay her damages Ð the                        concerning an application for remission of import
Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of                   duties;


title: Case F-103/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2014  — DE v EMA (Civil service — Member of the temporary staff of EMA — Evaluation report — Application for annulment — Obligation to state reasons — Manifest error of assessment — Infringement of procedural rules — None)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 December 2014 — DE v EMA
   (Case F-103/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Member of the temporary staff of EMA - Evaluation report - Application for annulment - Obligation to state reasons - Manifest error of assessment - Infringement of procedural rules - None))
   (2015/C 034/56)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: DE (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Medicines Agency (EMA) (represented by: S. Marino, T. Jabłoński and N. Rampal Olmedo, acting as Agents, and by D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the applicant’s performance evaluation report in respect of the period from 15 September 2010 to 15 September 2012.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Declares that DE is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay those incurred by the European Medicines Agency.

      (1)  OJ C 367, 14.12.2013, p. 41.


title: Case C-61/08: Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/20

         Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-61/08)
   (2008/C 92/38)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk)

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

               —

               declare that, by laying down and maintaining in operation Article 19(1) of the Notaries' Code (Law 2830/2000), the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations pursuant to the Treaty establishing the European Community, in particular under Articles 43 and 45 EC and Council Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The Greek authorities maintain that the activities of notaries are excluded from the application of Article 43 EC because they fall with the scope of application of Article 45 EC. They rely upon the status of notaries as public officials who confer on a notarised document increased evidential and executory force, similar to that of a judicial decision, with the use of the State seal, the status of notaries as judicial officials, their role as legal advisers, and a whole series of other activities. They also rely on the principle of territoriality, whereby Greek notaries are not permitted to establish themselves in other districts.

               2.

               The Commission considers that Article 43 EC constitutes one of the fundamental provisions of the Community and has direct application in the Member States from the end of the transitional period. It is aimed at ensuring the benefit of national treatment to every citizen of a Member State who establishes him or herself in another Member State, even as a secondary residence, to exercise a liberal profession and prohibits any discrimination on the ground of nationality created by national legislation.

               3.

               The derogation to freedom of establishment provided for in the first paragraph of Article 45 must be restricted to activities which in themselves ‘are directly and specifically connected with the exercise of official authority’ (2). In the Commission's view, none of the special features or activities relied upon by the Greek authorities constitute a direct and specific connection with the exercise of official authority as referred to in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and accordingly could not justify the nationality requirement.

               4.

               The Court of Justice considers that the criterion of being ‘directly and specifically connected’ does not cover the exercise of ancillary and preparatory duties in relation to those of the public authority, which takes the final decision. In addition, the Court of Justice, examining the regime of firms supplying private security, has held that in order for them to be directly and specifically connected to the exercise of official authority, those involved had to have been given ‘powers of constraint’ (3), which is not the case in this instance.

               5.

               As is clear from an examination of the case-law of the Court of Justice, the exercise of official authority should not be confused with an activity which is merely carried out on behalf of the public interest. The mere fact that an individual or an undertaking is to some degree bound to act on behalf of the public interest is not sufficient to characterise that function as the exercise of official authority.

               6.

               According to the Commission, Directive 89/48 applies to the profession of notary in so far as it is a profession the required qualifications for which are laid down by legislation, and its application cannot be circumvented by citing the assigning of sovereign rights to notaries for the following reasons:

                           (a)

                           such assignment does not constitute a direct and specific connection with the exercise of official authority which would justify imposition of the nationality condition; and

                           (b)

                           even supposing that notaries could be regarded as proper civil servants, which they are not, there is no relationship of dependency and salary as public servants and indeed they would not be exempted from the application of that directive, since that directive applies also, in principle, to the public service.

      (1)  OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.

      (2)  Case C-114/97 Commission v Spain [1998] ECR I-6717, paragrap 35.

      (3)  Ibid., paragraph 37.


title: Case C-508/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 9 November 2012 — Walter Vapenik v Josef Thurner

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) lodged on 9 November 2012 — Walter Vapenik v Josef Thurner
   (Case C-508/12)
   2013/C 46/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesgericht Salzburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Walter Vapenik

      Defendant: Josef Thurner

      Question referred

   Is Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 (1) to be interpreted as applying only to contracts between business persons as creditors and consumers as debtors, or is it sufficient for at least the debtor to be the consumer for the provision also to apply to claims of a consumer against another consumer?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15)


title: Case T-191/08: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — JOOP! v OHIM (Representation of an exclamation mark in a rectangle) (Community trade mark — Application for registration of a figurative Community trade mark representing an exclamation mark in a rectangle — Absolute ground for refusal — No distinctive character — No distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/45

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 2009 — JOOP! v OHIM (Representation of an exclamation mark in a rectangle)
   (Case T-191/08) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for registration of a figurative Community trade mark representing an exclamation mark in a rectangle - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - No distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 7(1)(b), (c) and 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2009/C 282/85
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: JOOP! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Schmidt-Hollburg, W. Möllering, A. Löhde, H. Leo, A. Witte, T. Frank, A. Theil, H-P. Rühland, B. Willers and T. Rein, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 (Case R 1822/2007-1) relating to an application for registration of a figurative sign as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders JOOP! GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case T-206/07: Action brought on 12 June 2007 — Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware v Council

text:
               21.7.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 170/41

         Action brought on 12 June 2007 — Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware v Council
   (Case T-206/07)
   (2007/C 170/79)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares & Hardware (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, lawyer, and G. Vallera. Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the antidumping duty imposed with respect to the applicant by Council Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China and Ukraine;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 23 April 2007, the Council adopted, on the basis of the Commission's proposal, Regulation (EC) No 452/2007 of 23 April 2007 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of ironing boards originating in the People's Republic of China and Ukraine (1). That regulation, which is the subject of this action, establishes anti-dumpting duty with respect to the applicant.
   In its action, the applicant claims that the definitive anti-dumping duty which was imposed on it is illegal inasmuch as the proposal for definitive measures submitted by the Commission to the Council, on which the contested regulation is founded, is flawed in two ways.
   First of all, the applicant submits that the proposal sent to the Council by the Commission was not founded on the definitive findings reached by the Commission, but on the provisional findings. The applicant maintains that the Commission erred in interpreting Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) as prohibiting it from correcting the initial determination of the treatment to be given to an undertaking in the light of that provision. The applicant therefore alleges that the Commission's proposal on definitive measures is vitiated by a manifest error in law.
   In addition, the applicant submits that the proposal for definitive measures is vitiated by an infringement of the essential procedural requirements in so far as it was adopted in breach of the rights of the defence and of Article 20(5) of Regulation No 384/96. In support of that plea, the applicant submits that the Commission sent its proposal to the Council before the expiry of the period for lodging its representations on the revised final disclosure on which the proposal is founded.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 109, p. 12.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community.


title: Case F-23/09: Action brought on 13 March 2009 — Cerafogli v ECB

text:
               6.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/21

         Action brought on 13 March 2009 — Cerafogli v ECB
   (Case F-23/09)
   2009/C 129/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Maria Concetta Cerafogli (Fankfurt, Germany) (represented by: L. Lévi, M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Board of Directors of the Bank appointing, on a temporary basis, an adviser to the Oversight Division and of vacancy notice ECB/074/08, as well as all decisions adopted on the basis of that vacancy notice. In addition, an application to order the defendant to pay compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of Board of Directors of 17 July 2008 appointing Mr L. on a temporary basis to the position of adviser in the Oversight Division;

               —

               annul vacancy notice ECB/074/08;

               —

               consequently, (i) annul all decisions taken on the basis of the vacancy notice, including the decision to appoint Mr L to the position of adviser in the Oversight Division taken following the recruitment procedure, and (ii) order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 10 000, fixed ex aequo et bono, as compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant as well as EUR 2 500 to compensate for the material damage connected to the intervention of the applicant’s advisers at the pre-litigation stage;

               —

               on the assumption that giving effect to a judgment annulling the decision or decisions would be very difficult, order the defendant to pay the sum of EUR 45 600;

               —

               order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.


title: Case T-241/09: Action brought on 16 June 2009 — Nikolaou v Court of Auditors

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/41

         Action brought on 16 June 2009 — Nikolaou v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-241/09)
   2009/C 205/76
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Kalliopi Nikolaou (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos)

      Defendant: Court of Auditors

      Form of order sought

   The Court is asked to:

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to compensate Mrs Nikolaou for the non-material damage she has suffered by the following means:

                           —

                           by issuing a formal communication, cooperating with Mrs Nikolaou as to its content, which will be notified to her as well, to all the Community authorities, in particular to the European Parliament, the European Commission and the other Community institutions and bodies, concerning the fact that Mrs Nikolaou has been cleared of the allegations against her;

                           —

                           by issuing a formal communication for publication in those newspapers in Luxembourg, Germany, Greece, France, Spain and Belgium which published negative comments on Mrs Nikolaou, the source of which was the Court of Auditors, and in the European Voice, concerning the fact that the applicant has been cleared of the allegations against her;

               —

               in the alternative, if the Court of Auditors does not restore Mrs Nikolaou’s public image by the above means, order it to pay her the amount of EUR 100 000 as compensation for non-material damage, together with interest from the date of notification to it of her Request for compensation to the date of settlement, which Mrs Nikolaou undertakes to use to ensure the above publication and communications;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay to Mrs Nikolaou as financial compensation for the non-material damage she suffered owing to the proceedings before the Luxembourg judicial authorities the amount of EUR 40 000, together with interest from the date of notification to it of her Request for compensation to the date of settlement.

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay to Mrs Nikolaou as financial compensation for the financial damage to which she was subjected owing to the proceedings before the Luxembourg judicial authorities, specifically before the Juge d’instruction and the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg, the sum of EUR 57 771,40 in respect of the fees of her lawyer, Maître Hoss, for appearing in the above, and the amount of EUR 4 000 in respect of her travelling expenses to appear in the above, more specifically EUR 1 500 to appear before the Juge d’instruction and EUR 2 500 to appear before the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg, together with interest on all the above sums from 14 April 2009,the date of notification to the Court of Auditors of her Request for compensation to the date of settlement;

               —

               order the Court of Auditors to pay Mrs Nikolaou’s costs in these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant maintains that the Court of Auditors flagrantly infringed specific provisions which confer rights on individuals and the fundamental rights which the Court of Auditors should respect in exercising its powers.
   First, the applicant maintains that the Court of Auditors flagrantly infringed Article 4 of Regulation No 45/2001, (1) Article 2 of Decision 99/50 of the Court of Auditors and was in breach of its duty to provide assistance, because it allowed various allegations against Mrs Nikolaou to be leaked to third parties before any formal investigation had been conducted. The Court of Auditors took no steps, in the applicant’s view, to prevent those leaks, nor, moreover, at any later point was it concerned to review the allegations and to withdraw them, the result being that significant non-material damage was caused to the applicant.
   Secondly, the Court of Auditors flagrantly infringed Articles 2 and 4 of Decision 99/50, the applicant’s rights of defence, and the principle of impartiality of the investigation, in conjunction with the principle of sound administration, in its conduct of the preliminary investigation, to the detriment of the applicant. That conduct caused non-material damage and significant financial damage to the applicant, because on the basis of the evidence in the investigation, the applicant was referred to the judicial authorities of Luxembourg and subjected to considerable expense.
   Thirdly, the Court of Auditors was in flagrant breach of its duty to provide assistance and the principle of sound administration, because it did not produce evidence to the Luxembourg authorities which it had available and which was of decisive importance for clearing the applicant of the charges against her. The applicant adds that that evidence concerned the question of staff leave in the Court of Auditors and, if it had been transmitted by the latter, would have prevented her referral to the investigating authorities and the Luxembourg criminal court and would have led to restoring her honour and her reputation.
   Fourthly, according to the applicant, the Court of Auditors was in flagrant breach of the principle of impartiality and sound administration in deciding to refer the applicant’s case to the courts. That conduct caused even greater non-material damage to the applicant.
   Fifthly, according to the applicant’s arguments, the Court of Auditors was in flagrant breach of its duty to provide assistance in failing to adopt a formal decision clearing the applicant, and omitting to restore Mrs Nikolaou’s good name after her acquittal. That omission resulted in doubts persisting as to Mrs Nikolaou’s innocence and further non-material damage being caused to her.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1.


title: Case C-310/04: Action brought on 22 July 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/30

         Action brought on 22 July 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-310/04)
   (2004/C 228/63)
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 July 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain, represented by M. Muñoz Pérez, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Chapter 10a of Title IV of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, inserted by Article 1(20) of Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (1);

               —

               order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               —

               Infringement of the Treaty or of rules relating to its implementation in that the Council has contravened Article 3 of Protocol No 4 to the Act of Accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Communities, since the new Article 110b of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003, inserted by Regulation No 864/2004, does not provide for production aid for cotton.

               —

               Breach of an essential procedural requirement in that the Council failed to provide reasons for its selection, in new Article 110b of Council Regulation No 1782/2003, of the stage of boll opening as the decisive time for the grant of aid.

               —

               Misuse of powers in that the Council has used the power conferred on it by paragraph 6 of Protocol 4, cited above, that is to say the procedure for adapting the system of aid for cotton laid down in the Protocol, for an end which is different from that provided for therein.

               —

               Infringement of the Treaty or of rules relating to its implementation in that the Council has, in adopting the contested provisions, acted in breach of general principles of Community law: (i) proportionality, since the measures reforming the system of aid for cotton are manifestly contrary to the objectives which the Council itself has set and since, furthermore, there were other less onerous measures for attaining those objectives, and (ii) legitimate expectations.

      (1)  OJ L 161 of 30.04.2004, p. 48. Corrigendum to the regulation in OJ L 204 of 09.06.2004, p. 20.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, by order of that court of 11 March 1998, in the case of A.T.B. - Agricola Tabacchi Bonavicina Snc, a firm owned by Federica Marcati, and Others v. Ministero per le Politiche Agricole and Mario Pittaro (Case C-402/98) (1999/C 1/15)

text:
4.1.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 1/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                 1. Is a person who is employed by an undertaking (a
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, by order of that                    company in the form of a Besloten Vennootschap
court of 11 March 1998, in the case of A.T.B. Ð Agricola                (private limited company) incorporated under
Tabacchi Bonavicina Snc, a firm owned by Federica                       Netherlands law) which has its registered office in a
Marcati, and Others v. Ministero per le Politiche Agricole              Member State (the Netherlands) and maintains an
                       and Mario Pittaro                                office there but performs its activities primarily in the
                                                                        territory of another Member State and in the past has
                        (Case C-402/98)                                 performed them exclusively in the latter Member State
                         (1999/C 1/15)                                  (in this case, the carrying out of building projects in
                                                                        Germany) a person employed in the territory of the
                                                                        first Member State (Article 13(2)(a) of Council
                                                                        Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 in the version of 2 June
                                                                        1983 (OJ L 230, 22.8.1983, p. 8.)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Lazio Regional
Administrative Court) of 11 March 1998, which was                   2. If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is
received at the Court Registry on 11 November 1998, for                 there a posting' within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a)
a preliminary ruling in the case of A.T.B. Ð Agricola                   of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 where a
Tabacchi Bonavicina Snc, a firm owned by Federica                       building contractor with its registered office in a
Marcati, and Others v. Ministero per le Politiche Agricole              Member State employs its employees primarily on
and Mario Pittaro, on the following question:                           building projects in another Member State and has
                                                                        employed them exclusively there in the past over a
                                                                        number of years but the anticipated duration of each
                                                                        individual building project does not exceed twelve
By introducing innovative arrangements for the rules on                 months?
premiums for the production of tobacco when planting
had already been carried out and producers had made
investments in accordance with reasonable assessment
criteria based on the Community rules in force at the time
of sowing and planting out in the fields, do Article 2 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 711/95 (1) Article 20 of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1066/95 (2) and Article 2             Reference for a preliminary ruling by Stockholms
of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1067/95 (3), infringe              Tingsrätten (District Court, Stockholm) by order of
the principles governing sound organisation of the                  that court of 18 September 1998 in the case of
agricultural market in tobacco and the principle of                 Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) (Consumer Ombudsman)
protection of legitimate expectations?                                  v. Gourmet International Products Aktiebolag (GIP)
                                                                                (Case C-405/98)
(1) OJ L 73, 1.4.1995, p. 13.
(2) OJ L 108, 13.5.1995, p. 5.                                                             (1999/C 1/17)
(3) OJ L 108, 13.5.1995, p. 11.
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by order of 18 September 1998
                                                                    Stockholms Tingsrätten (District Court, Stockholm),
                                                                    which was received at the Court Registry on 16 November
                                                                    1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) (Consumer Ombudsman)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                         v. Gourmet International Products Aktiebolag (GIP) on the
Bundesgerichtshof, by order of that court of 29 October             following questions:
1998, in the case of Josef Plum v. AOK Rheinland,
                   Cologne Regional Office
                        (Case C-404/98)                             1. Is Article 30 or Article 59 of the Treaty of Rome to be
                                                                        interpreted as precluding national legislation entailing
                         (1999/C 1/16)                                  a general prohibition of alcohol advertising, such as
                                                                        the prohibition laid down in Article 2 of
                                                                        Alkoholreklamlagen?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof              2. If so, can such a prohibition be regarded as justified
(Federal Court of Justice) of 29 October 1998, received at              and proportionate for the protection of life and health
the Court Registry on 16 November 1998, for a                           of humans?
preliminary ruling in the case of Josef Plum v. AOK
Rheinland, Cologne Regional Office, on the following
questions:


title: Case T-100/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2008 — Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée v Commission (Action for annulment — Setting up of an Info-Point Europe — Termination of an agreement entered into by the Commission and the applicant — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/33

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 April 2008 — Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée v Commission
   (Case T-100/03) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Setting up of an Info-Point Europe - Termination of an agreement entered into by the Commission and the applicant - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 128/71)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée (Avignon, France) (represented by: F. Martineau, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Application for the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 24 January 2003 terminating the agreement between the Commission and the applicant on the setting up of an Info-Point Europe (IPE) in Avignon
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Maison de l'Europe Avignon Méditerranée is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.


title: Case C-25/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação SA v Fazenda Pública (Taxation — Sixth VAT Directive — Deduction of input tax — Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 — ‘Subsidies’ used for the purchase of goods and services — Restriction of the right to deduct)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/9

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-25/11) (1)

   (Taxation - Sixth VAT Directive - Deduction of input tax - Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 - ‘Subsidies’ used for the purchase of goods and services - Restriction of the right to deduct)
   2012/C 98/11
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Varzim Sol — Turismo, Jogo e Animação SA

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Interpretation of Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Restriction of the right to deduct

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 17(2) and (5) and Article 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State, where it authorises mixed taxable persons to make the deduction provided for in those provisions on the basis of the use of all or part of the goods and services, from calculating the deductible amount, for sectors in which such taxable persons carry out taxable transactions only, by including untaxed ‘subsidies’ in the denominator of the fraction used to determine the deductible proportion.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case T-285/03: Action brought on 18 August 2003 by Agraz SA and 110 others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 251/18               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          18.10.2003
Regulations) and breach of the principle of equality of treat-            Specifically, for the marketing year 2000/2001, the
ment and non-discrimination.                                              Commission took as its basis for calculating production aid
                                                                          the export prices of tomatoes from the United States, Israel
                                                                          and Turkey. It follows that the defendant did not take into
                                                                          account the export prices of China, although in 1999 it was
                                                                          the world's second largest producer of tomatoes. That basis for
                                                                          calculation significantly reduced production aid.
                                                                          In support of their claims, the applicants argue that the
Action brought on 18 August 2003 by Agraz SA and                          conditions in the Bergadem case-law are fulfilled in the present
110 others against the Commission of the European                         case.
                           Communities
                         (Case T-285/03)
                                                                          The applicants claim that that omission infringes the relevant
                         (2003/C 251/34)
                                                                          basic regulation (2), that the regulation confers rights on
                                                                          individuals and that the powers of the Commission when
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          Regulation No 1519/2000 was adopted were extremely lim-
                                                                          ited, consisting merely in identifying the reference countries
                                                                          for the purposes of calculating the amount of the aid.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 18 August 2003 by the
company Agraz SA and 110 other companies, represented                     Finally, the Commission infringed the principles of good
by J.-L. da Cruz Vilaça, R. Oliveira, M.-J. Melícias and                  administration and legitimate expectations by failing to make
D. Choussy, laywers.                                                      the effort needed to learn the Chinese prices and by refusing,
                                                                          once it was notified of those prices, to amend the regulation.
The applicants claim that the Court should:                               (1) OJ L 174 of 13.7.2000, p. 29.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 297 of 21.11.1996, p. 29.
—     order the defendant to pay each applicant company the
      balance of the production aid together with interest at a
      rate fixed by the Court of First Instance as from 12 July
      2000 (or, in the alternative, as from 13 July 2000 or,
      further in the alternative, as from 16 July 2000) and until
      the actual day of payment;                                          Action brought on 15 August 2003 by The Gillette
                                                                          Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                                Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs, including those                                        (Case T-286/03)
      incurred by the applicants.
                                                                                (2003/C 251/35)
                                                                          (Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
                                                                          the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                submitted: German)
The present application seeks recognition of the extra-contrac-
tual liability of the Community arising from the damage alleg-
edly suffered by the applicants as the result of the method used          An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
to calculate the amount of production aid for processed                   Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
tomato products for the marketing year 2000/2001 under                    Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1519/2000 of 12 July                        15 August 2003 by The Gillette Company, Boston (USA),
2000 setting for the 2000/01 marketing year the minimum                   represented by L. Kouker, lawyer. Wilkinson Sword GmbH,
price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato               Solingen (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings
products (1).                                                             before the Board of Appeal.


title: Case T-390/03: Action brought on 24 November 2003 by CM Capital Markets Holding, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
C 21/46                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.1.2004
Action brought on 24 November 2003 by CM Capital                          Decision of the Oppo-          Opposition upheld and appli-
Markets Holding, S.A. against the Office for Harmonis-                    sition Division:               cation for registration refused in
ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                   respect of the following services:
                             (OHIM)                                                                      business management, business
                                                                                administration, office functions
                                                                                (Class 35); insurance, financial
                         (Case T-390/03)                                                                 affairs, monetary affairs, banking
                                                                                business,       real-estate    affairs
                                                                                (Class 36); telecommunications
                          (2004/C 21/91)
                                                                                (Class 38); legal services and scien-
                                                                                tific and industrial research
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                                                        (Class 42).
                                                                          Decision of the Board of       Appeal brought by the applicant
                                                                          Appeal:                        for the mark upheld.
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                Pleas in law:                  Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                               No 40/94 incorrectly applied
24 November 2003 by CM Capital Markets Holding, S.A.,                                                    (likelihood of confusion).
established in Madrid, represented by Natalia Moya Fernández
of the Madrid Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the OHIM (First Board of Appeal)
      of 23 September 2003 in Case R-244/2003 and, as a
      consequence, uphold in its entirety the opposition
      brought in opposition proceedings B348914;                          Action brought on 27 November 2003 by Yves Franchet
                                                                          and Daniel Byk against the Commission of the European
—     accept the applicant’s arguments persuading the OHIM                                           Communities
      Opposition Division that the sign concerned should not
      be registered as a mark;
                                                                                (Case T-391/03)
—     order the OHIM to pay the costs and reject the OHIM’s
      arguments.
                                                                                (2004/C 21/92)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for Com-            Caja de Ahorros de Murcia.
munity trade mark:
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Community trade mark          Figurative mark for which colour            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
sought:                       is claimed, consisting of the depic-        European Communities on 27 November 2003 by Yves
                              tion of a red square containing             Franchet and Daniel Byk, both residing in Luxembourg,
                              the letters ‘CM’ — Application              represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                              No 1.413.061 for goods and ser-
                              vices in Classes 1 to 42.
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
Proprietor of mark or         The applicant.
sign cited in the oppo-
sition proceedings:                                                       —     annul the European Commission’s decision of 18 August
                                                                                2003, notified on 21 August 2003, refusing the appli-
                                                                                cants request for access to certain documents held by that
Mark or sign cited in         Spanish figurative mark ‘CAPITAL                  institution, and the Commission’s decision of 1 October
opposition:                   MARKETS CM’, registered under                     2003, refusing the confirmatory application lodged by
                              numbers 2.000.040, 2.000.041,                     the applicants on 8 September 2003;
                              2.000.042 and 2.000.043 for ser-
                              vices in Classes 35, 36, 38 and
                              42.                                         —     order the defendant to pay all of the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 July 2004 in Case C-169/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten): Florian W. Wallentin v Riksskatteverket (Free movement of persons — Workers — Income tax — Restricted liability of a taxpayer receiving a small part of his income in one Member State and residing in another Member State)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/7

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 1 July 2004
   in Case C-169/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten): Florian W. Wallentin v Riksskatteverket (1)

   (Free movement of persons - Workers - Income tax - Restricted liability of a taxpayer receiving a small part of his income in one Member State and residing in another Member State)
   (2004/C 217/12)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   In Case C-169/03: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Florian W. Wallentin and Riksskatteverket — on the interpretation of Article 39 EC — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it has ruled:
   Article 39 EC precludes a Member State's legislation from providing that

               —

               natural persons who are not regarded as being resident for tax purposes in that Member State, but who receive income there from employment, are subject to taxation levied at source such that the basic allowance or any other allowance or deduction linked to the taxpayer's personal circumstances is not granted,

               —

               whereas taxpayers resident in that State are entitled to such allowances or deductions at the time of ordinary assessment to tax on their income received in that State and abroad,

               —

               when the persons not resident in the State of taxation have had, in their own State of residence, only income which, by its nature, is not subject to income tax.

      (1)   OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.