title: Case C-526/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče (Slovenia) lodged on 20 November 2014  — Tadej Kotnik and others, Jože Sedonja and others, Fondazione cassa di risparmio di Imola, Imola, Italian Republic, Andrej Pipuš in Dušanka Pipuš, Tomaž Štrukelj, Luka Jukič, Angel Jaromil, Franc Marušič and others, Stajka Skrbinšek, Janez Forte and others, Marija Pipuš, Državni svet Republike Slovenije, Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije v Državni zbor Republike Slovenije

text:
               9.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 81/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavno sodišče (Slovenia) lodged on 20 November 2014 — Tadej Kotnik and others, Jože Sedonja and others, Fondazione cassa di risparmio di Imola, Imola, Italian Republic, Andrej Pipuš in Dušanka Pipuš, Tomaž Štrukelj, Luka Jukič, Angel Jaromil, Franc Marušič and others, Stajka Skrbinšek, Janez Forte and others, Marija Pipuš, Državni svet Republike Slovenije, Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije v Državni zbor Republike Slovenije
   (Case C-526/14)
   (2015/C 081/04)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Ustavno sodišče

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Tadej Kotnik and others, Jože Sedonja and others, Fondazione cassa di risparmio di Imola, Imola, Italian Republic, Andrej Pipuš in Dušanka Pipuš, Tomaž Štrukelj, Luka Jukič, Angel Jaromil, Franc Marušič and others, Stajka Skrbinšek, Janez Forte and others, Marija Pipuš, Državni svet Republike Slovenije, Varuh človekovih pravic Republike Slovenije

      Defendant: Državni zbor Republike Slovenije

      Questions referred

               1.

                           (a)

                           Having regard to the legal effects actually produced by the Banking Communication (1), and given that the European Union has exclusive competence in the State aid sector, in accordance with Article 3(1)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’), and the Commission has competence to give decisions relating to the State aid sector, pursuant to Article 108 TFEU, must the Banking Communication be regarded as binding on Member States seeking to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy by granting State aid to credit institutions where such aid is intended to be permanent and cannot be easily revoked?

                           (b)

                           Are paragraphs 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication — which make the possibility of granting State aid intended to remedy a serious disturbance in the national economy conditional upon compliance with the requirement to write off capital, hybrid capital and subordinated debt and/or to convert into capital hybrid capital instruments and subordinated debt instruments, in order to limit the amount of aid to the minimum necessary in the light of the need to take account of the moral hazard — compatible with Articles 107 TFEU, 108 TFEU and 109 TFEU, in so far as they exceed the Commission’s competence, as defined in those TFEU provisions on State aid?

                           (c)

                           If Question 2 is answered in the negative, are paragraphs 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication — which make the possibility of granting State aid conditional on the requirement to write off capital and/or convert into capital, in so far as that requirement relates to shares (capital), hybrid capital instruments and subordinated debt instruments issued before the publication of the Banking Communication, all or some of which, at the time they were issued, could have been written off without any provision for compensation only in the event of the bank’s collapse — compatible with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations enshrined in EU law?

                           (d)

                           If Question 2 is answered in the negative and Question 3 in the affirmative, are paragraphs 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication — which make the possibility of granting State aid conditional on the requirement to write off capital, hybrid capital and subordinated debt instruments and/or to convert into capital hybrid capital instruments and subordinated debt instruments, without the initiation and conclusion of an insolvency procedure by which the debtor’s assets may be liquidated by means of judicial proceedings in which the holders of subordinated financial instruments would have the opportunity to participate as parties to the proceedings — compatible with the right to property enshrined in Article 17(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

                           (e)

                           If Question 2 is answered in the negative and Questions 3 and 4 in the affirmative, are paragraphs 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication — which make the possibility of granting State aid conditional on the requirement to write off capital, hybrid capital and subordinated debt instruments and/or to convert into capital hybrid capital instruments and subordinated debt instruments, in so far as the implementation of those measures calls for a reduction and/or increase in the base capital of public limited liability companies on the basis of the decision of the competent administrative body, not that of the general meeting of shareholders of the public limited liability company — compatible with Articles 29, 34, 35 and 40 to 42 of Directive 2012/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in respect of the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent (2)?

                           (f)

                           With regard to paragraph 19 of the Banking Communication, in particular the requirement laid down in that provision to respect fundamental rights, to paragraph 20, and to the affirmation of the requirement, in principle, laid down in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the communication, to convert or write down hybrid capital and subordinated debt instruments before granting State aid, may the Banking Communication be interpreted as meaning that those measures do not require Member States seeking to remedy a serious disturbance in their economy by granting State aid to credit institutions to impose an obligation to adopt such conversion and writing down measures as a condition for the grant of State aid on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, or as meaning that, in order to be able to grant State aid, it is sufficient that the conversion or writing down measure should merely operate in a manner that is proportionate?

               2.

               May the seventh indent of Article 2 of Directive 2001/24/EC (3) be interpreted as meaning that the measures requiring burden sharing by shareholders and subordinated creditors provided for in paragraphs 40 to 46 of the Banking Communication (write-down of Common Equity Tier 1, hybrid capital, subordinated debt instruments and the conversion into capital of hybrid capital instruments and subordinated debt instruments) may also be classified as reorganisation measures?

      (1)  Communication from the Commission on the application, from 1 August 2013, of State aid rules to support measures in favour of banks in the context of the financial crisis (‘Banking Communication’) (OJ 2013 C 216, p. 1).

      (2)  OJ 2012 L 315.

      (3)  Directive 2001/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the reorganisation and winding up of credit institutions (OJ 2001 L 125).


title: Case T-86/15: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)

text:
               4.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 293/40

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2017 — Aston Martin Lagonda v EUIPO (Representation of a grille positioned on the front of a motor vehicle)
   (Case T-86/15) (1)

   (2017/C 293/50)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 28 April 1998 in Case C-118/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from Länsrätten i Dalarnas Län, formerly Länsrätten i Kopparbergs Län): Jessica Safir v. Skattemyndigheten i Dalarnas Län, formerly Skattemyndigheten i Kopparbergs Län (Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Taxation of savings in the form of life assurance - Legislation of a Member State establishing different tax regimes according to the place of establishment of the undertaking providing the services)

text:
4.7.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/5
corrective lenses purchased from an optician established in                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
another Member State, on the ground that prior                                              of 28 April 1998
authorisation is required for the purchase of any medical
product abroad.                                                      in Case C-158/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     from the Cour de Cassation): Raymond Kohll v. Union
                                                                                des Caisses de Maladie (1)
(1) OJ C 137 of 3.6.1995.
                                                                     (Freedom to provide services Ð Reimbursement of
                                                                     medical expenses incurred in another Member State Ð
                                                                     Prior authorisation of the competent institution Ð Public
                                                                                health Ð Dental treatment)
                                                                                (98/C 209/09)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 (Language of the case: French)
                       of 28 April 1998
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in Case C-118/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                     published in the European Court Reports)
Länsrätten i Dalarnas Län, formerly Länsrätten i Koppar-
bergs Län): Jessica Safir v. Skattemyndigheten i Dalarnas            In Case C-158/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
   Län, formerly Skattemyndigheten i Kopparbergs Län (1)             of the EC Treaty from the Luxembourg Cour de Cassation
                                                                     (Court of Cassation) for a preliminary ruling in the
(Freedom to provide services Ð Free movement of capital
                                                                     proceedings pending before that court between Raymond
Ð Taxation of savings in the form of life assurance Ð
                                                                     Kohll and Union des Caisses de Maladie Ð on the
Legislation of a Member State establishing different tax
                                                                     interpretation of Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty Ð
regimes according to the place of establishment of the
                                                                     the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
             undertaking providing the services)
                                                                     President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and
                        (98/C 209/08)                                M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.
                                                                     Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,
                                                                     D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and
               (Language of the case: Swedish)                       L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General;
                                                                     D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April 1998, in
                                                                     which it has ruled:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty preclude national
                                                                     rules under which reimbursement, in accordance with the
                                                                     scale of the State of insurance, of the cost of dental
In Case C-118/96: reference to the Court under Article 177           treatment provided by an orthodontist established in
of the EC Treaty from Länsrätten i Dalarnas Län,                     another Member State is subject to authorisation by the
formerly Länsrätten i Kopparbergs Län (County                        insured person's social security institution.
Administrative Court, County of Kopparberg), Sweden,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before           (1) OJ C 180 of 22.6.1996.
that court between Jessica Safir and Skattemyndigheten i
Dalarnas Län, formerly Skattemyndigheten i Kopparbergs
Län Ð on the interpretation of Articles 6, 59, 60, 73b
and 73d of the EC Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm,
M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P.                                      of 28 April 1998
Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Judges; G. Tesauro,               in Case C-200/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling
Advocate General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,               from the Landgericht Köln): Metronome Musik GmbH v.
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 April 1998,                           Music Point Hokamp GmbH (1)
in which it has ruled:
                                                                     (Copyright and related rights Ð Rental and lending right
                                                                                Ð Validity of Directive 92/100/EEC)
Article 59 of the EC Treaty precludes the application of                                     (98/C 209/10)
national legislation relating to the taxation of capital life
assurance such as the legislation in question in the main                          (Language of the case: German)
proceedings.
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(1) OJ C 158 of 1.6.1996.                                                     published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-200/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Landgericht (Regional Court)


title: Case C-466/10: Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 February 2011 — European Commission v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-466/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/60
   Language of the case: Greek
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 20.11.2010.


title: Case C-445/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2006 — Danske Slagterier v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/36

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 6 November 2006 — Danske Slagterier v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-445/06)
   (2006/C 326/77)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesgerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Danske Slagterier

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 5(1)(o) and Article 6(1)(b)(iii) of Council Directive 64/433/EEC (1) of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in fresh meat, as reenacted by Council Directive 91/497/EEC (2) of 29 July 1991, in conjunction with Article 5(1), Article 7 and Article 8 of Council Directive 89/662/EEC (3) of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal market place producers and distributors of pigmeat in a legal position which can give rise to a claim seeking to establish State liability under Community law in the event of errors of transposition or application?

               2.

               May the producers and distributors of pigmeat — irrespective of the answer to the first question — rely on an infringement of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (Article 28 EC) in order to substantiate a claim seeking to establish State liability under Community law where the transposition and application of the abovementioned directives are contrary to Community law?

               3.

               Does Community law require the limitation period for a claim seeking to establish State liability under Community law to be interrupted in the light of Treaty infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC or to be suspended pending the end of those proceedings at least where there is no effective domestic legal remedy to compel the Member State to transpose a directive?

               4.

               Does the limitation period for a claim which seeks to establish State liability under Community law and is based on the inadequate transposition of a directive and an accompanying (de facto) import ban commence, irrespective of the applicable national law, only with the full transposition of the directive, or can the limitation period begin to run, in accordance with national law, when the first injurious effects have already been produced and further injurious effects are foreseeable? If full transposition has a bearing on the commencement of the limitation period, is this true in general or only if the directive confers a right on individuals?

               5.

               Given that the Member States may not frame the conditions for reparation of loss and damage in respect of claims seeking to establish State liability under Community law less favourably than those relating to similar domestic claims and it may not be made virtually impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation, are there, generally, objections to a national rule under which liability for damages does not arise where the injured party has wilfully or negligently failed to avert the damage by employing a legal remedy? Are there also objections to this ‘primacy of primary legal protection’ where it is subject to the proviso that it must be reasonable for the party concerned? Is the fact that the relevant court is likely to be unable to answer the questions of Community law at issue without making a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities or that Treaty infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC are already pending sufficient to make it unreasonable under European Community law?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1963-64, p. 185.

      (2)  OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69.

      (3)  OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.


title: Case C-36/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 22 January 2016 — Minister Finansów v Posnania Investment SA

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 22 January 2016 — Minister Finansów v Posnania Investment SA
   (Case C-36/16)
   (2016/C 145/21)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Minister Finansów

      Respondent: Posnania Investment SA

      Question referred

   Does the transfer of ownership of land (tangible property) by a person taxable for VAT purposes to: (a) the State Treasury — in settlement of tax arrears in respect of taxes constituting State budget revenues; or (b) a municipality, district or regional authority — in settlement of tax arrears in respect of taxes constituting their budget revenues, resulting in the discharge of tax liabilities, constitute a transaction that is subject to tax (supply of goods for consideration) within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) and Article 14(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax? (1)

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-424/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 January 2009 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark OPTIMUM — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Obligation to state reasons — Examination of the facts of OHIM's own motion — Articles 73 and 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 January 2009 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM)
   (Case T-424/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark OPTIMUM - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Obligation to state reasons - Examination of the facts of OHIM's own motion - Articles 73 and 74(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2009/C 55/44)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. (Johnston, Iowa, United States) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2007 (Case R 288/2007-2), concerning an application for registration of the word sign OPTIMUM as a Community trade mark
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case C-63/07: Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 27 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/34

         Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 27 August 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-63/07) (1)

   (2007/C 297/61)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case C-578/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel (Germany) lodged on 15 November 2013 — Hans-Jürgen Kickler and Others v Hellenic Republic

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Kiel (Germany) lodged on 15 November 2013 — Hans-Jürgen Kickler and Others v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-578/13)
   2014/C 24/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Kiel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hans-Jürgen Kickler, Walter Wöhlk, Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein Versorgungswerk

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (‘the Regulation’) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action by which the person acquiring government bonds of the defendant makes payment claims against the defendant in the form of claims for performance and damages is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’, within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1(1) of the Regulation, in the case where the acquirer did not accept the exchange offer made by the defendant at the end of February 2012, which was made possible by Greek Law No 4050/2012 (‘Greek-Bondholder-Act’)?

               2.

               Does an action which is essentially based on the ineffectiveness or invalidity of the aforementioned Greek-Bondholder-Act concern the liability of a State for actions or omissions in the exercise of State authority, within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 1(1) of the Regulation?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).


title: Case C-606/14 P: Appeal brought on 23 December 2014 by Portovesme Srl against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 in Case T-291/11 Portovesme v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/9

         Appeal brought on 23 December 2014 by Portovesme Srl against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 in Case T-291/11 Portovesme v Commission
   (Case C-606/14 P)
   (2015/C 089/10)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Portovesme Srl (represented by: G. Dore, M. Liberati, A. Vinci, F. Ciulli, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal and, consequently, annul the contested decision, granting the form of order sought in the application at first instance (and expunging the phrase ‘or in so far as is deemed reasonable’ at point 1 of the form of order sought);

               —

               in the alternative, uphold the present appeal and refer the case back to the General Court for a reassessment of the application at first instance, adhering to the points of law to be established by the Court on appeal;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs incurred both at first instance and on appeal.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   In support of the present appeal, the appellant puts forward seven different grounds for setting aside the judgment under appeal:

               1.

               By its first ground, the appellant challenges the judgment under appeal on the basis of the incorrect assessment of the principle that administrative proceedings must take place within a reasonable time and the principle of legitimate expectations, in so far as concerns the part of the contested decision in which the recovery of the aid granted is ordered.

               2.

               By its second ground, the appellant considers that the judgment under appeal is unlawful and should be set aside on account of the General Court’s failure to state reasons in so far as it concluded that the contested decision did not infringe the principles that administrative action should be conducted with diligence and impartiality.

               3.

               By its third ground, the appellant alleges that the General Court infringed Article 19 TEU in the parts of the judgment under appeal in which that court provided its own interpretation of the national rules, at odds with the literal wording of those rules, in clear breach of the limits of its jurisdiction.

               4.

               By its fourth ground, the appellant contends that the General Court erred in its assessment of the alleged unequal treatment which it suffered by comparison with another operator (Alcoa-Alumix) in respect of a similar aid measure, and also infringed Article 108 TFEU, in so far as it found that the aid had to be regarded as ‘existing’ aid.

               5.

               By its fifth ground, the appellant alleges infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU, in so far as, contrary to the finding of the General Court, the disputed measure neither constitutes an undue advantage nor affects trade between Member States.

               6.

               By its sixth ground, the appellant criticises the lack of/insufficient/erroneous assessment by the General Court of the challenge regarding the selective nature of the measure.

               7.

               By its seventh and final ground, the appellant complains that the General Court infringed Article 174 TFEU and Article 107(3) TFEU, in so far as the compensatory measure, on the one hand, is consistent with the social cohesion policies for island regions lacking infrastructure and, on the other hand, comes within the derogations referred to in Article 107 TFEU.


title: Case T-658/13: Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — BP v FRA (Appeal — Civil service — Member of the contract staff — Staff of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights — Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period — Right to be heard — Reassignment to another department until expiry of the contract — Assessment of the facts — Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/38

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 June 2015 — BP v FRA
   (Case T-658/13) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Staff of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights - Non-renewal of a fixed-term contract for an indefinite period - Right to be heard - Reassignment to another department until expiry of the contract - Assessment of the facts - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Obligation to state reasons))
   (2015/C 236/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: BP (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (represented by: M. Kjærum, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2013 in BP v FRA (F-38/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:138), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 September 2013 in BP v FRA (F-38/12, ECR-SC, EU:F:2013:138) in so far as it dismissed the application brought against the decision of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), contained in a letter of 27 February 2012, not to renew BP’s contract of service as a member of the contract staff;

               2.

               Annuls the decision of the FRA, contained in a letter of 27 February 2012, not to renew BP’s contract of service as a member of the contract staff;

               3.

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               4.

               Orders BP and the FRA to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings before the Civil Service Tribunal and on appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


29.4.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 122/17
       Removal from the register of Case C-380/97 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-395/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/33)                                                     (2000/C 122/36)
By order of 20 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 1 February 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-380/97 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      from the register of Case C-395/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank, The Hague): Emesa
Sugar (Free Zone) NV v Kingdom of the Netherlands and                 ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundver-
                                                                      kehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v Herbert Kappes
Others.
                                                                      and Edwin Neuner.
(1) OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 26 of 24.1.1998.
       Removal from the register of Case C-345/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/34)                                     Removal from the register of Case C-290/99 (1)
By order of 27 January 2000 the President of the Court of                                    (2000/C 122/37)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case-345/97: Federal Republic of Germany
v Council of the European Union.                                      By order of 3 February 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
                                                                      from the register of Case-290/99: Council of the European
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                           Union v Martin Bangemann.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 314 of 30.10.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-407/97 (1)
                         (2000/C 122/35)
By order of 31 January 2000 the President of the Court of                    Removal from the register of Case C-288/98 (1)
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-407/97 (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Landesgrundver-                                       (2000/C 122/38)
kehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v Adolf Sparber,
Firma Atelier Delta Entwurf — und Planungsgesellschaft mbH,           By order of 18 February 2000 the President of the Court of
en liquidation, Hans-Eberhard Junkersdorf and Maria-Margare-          Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
te Junkersdorf.                                                       from the register of Case C-288/98 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                      ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione): Istituto Nazion-
                                                                      ale della Previdenza Sociale (INPS) v Mario Maraldi SpA.
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.


title: Case C-397/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Scheuten Solar Technology GmbH v Finanzamt Gelsenkirchen-Süd (Taxation — Directive 2003/49/EC — Common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States — Business tax — Determination of the basis of assessment)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Scheuten Solar Technology GmbH v Finanzamt Gelsenkirchen-Süd
   (Case C-397/09) (1)

   (Taxation - Directive 2003/49/EC - Common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States - Business tax - Determination of the basis of assessment)
   2011/C 269/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Scheuten Solar Technology GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Gelsenkirchen-Süd

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States (OJ 2003 L 157, p. 49) — Whether or not interest payments are included in the basis of assessment to trade tax of the debtor company

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States must be interpreted as not precluding a provision of national tax law under which loan interest paid by a company established in one Member State to an associated company in another Member State is incorporated into the basis of assessment of the business tax payable by the former company.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Case C-349/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2016 — T.KUP SAS v Belgische Staat

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/35

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandstalige Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 24 June 2016 — T.KUP SAS v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-349/16)
   (2016/C 335/47)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Nederlandstalige rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: T.KUP SAS

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Regulation No 1294/2009 (1) invalid in respect of an importer such as that in the present case, on the ground of infringement of Article 17(1) of the basic regulation, (2) given that the Commission, in its review, used a sample of only eight importers, notwithstanding the fact that a manageable number of 21 importers ought to have been examined?

               2.

               Is Regulation No 1294/2009 invalid in respect of an importer such as that in the present dispute, on the ground of infringement of the third subparagraph of Article 11(2) of the basic regulation, given that the Commission, in its review, did not take sufficient account of the evidence supplied in that it included five large importers in the sample as against only three small importers, and in that it primarily took into account the information provided by the five large importers?

               3.

               Is Regulation No 1294/2009 invalid in respect of an importer such as that in the present dispute, on the ground of infringement of Articles 2 and 3 of the basic regulation and/or of Article 11(2), (5) and (9) of the basic regulation, given that the Commission, in its review, had before it inadequate information to enable it to determine that there were continued imports resulting in dumping and injury?

               4.

               Is Regulation No 1294/2009 invalid in respect of an importer such as that in the present dispute, on the ground of infringement of Article 21 of the basic regulation, given that the Commission, in its review, requires that there be specific indications that an importer is being disproportionately burdened by an extension?

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 of 22 December 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather consigned from the Macao SAR, whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ 2009 L 352, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).


title: Case C-533/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 October 2015 — Feliks Frisman v Finnair Oyj

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 13 October 2015 — Feliks Frisman v Finnair Oyj
   (Case C-533/15)
   (2016/C 048/14)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Feliks Frisman

      Defendant: Finnair Oyj

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 5(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ also covers a claim for compensation made under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No [295/91] and brought against an operating air carrier which is not a party to the contract with the passenger concerned?

               2.

               Insofar as Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 is applicable:
               When passengers are transported on one of several connecting flights without any significant stopover at the connecting airports, is the place of departure of the first leg of the journey to be regarded as being the place where the services were provided under the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 even if the flight connection has been carried out by different air carriers and the claim which has been brought is directed against the air carrier which operated a different leg of the journey, on which a significant delay occurred?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case F-1/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Plenary Formation) of 26 October 2006 — Landgren v European Training Foundation (Member of the temporary staff — Contract of indeterminate duration — Dismissal — Professional inadequacy — Duty to state reasons — Manifest error of appraisal)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/64

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Plenary Formation) of 26 October 2006 — Landgren v European Training Foundation
   (Case F-1/05) (1)

   (Member of the temporary staff - Contract of indeterminate duration - Dismissal - Professional inadequacy - Duty to state reasons - Manifest error of appraisal)
   (2006/C 294/126)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Claimant: Pia Landgren (Turin, Italy) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Training Foundation (represented by: M. Dunbar, Director, and G. Vandersanden, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision to dismiss the claimant and application for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               sets aside the decision of the European Training Foundation of 25 June 2004 to revoke Ms Landgren's contract of indeterminate duration as a member of the temporary staff;

               2.

               enjoins the parties to forward to the Tribunal, within three months of the date of delivery of this judgment, either the jointly agreed amount of monetary compensation resulting from the illegality of the decision of 25 June 2004 or, failing agreement on the matter, the figures which they wish to submit in respect of that amount;

               3.

               reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 182 of 23.7.2005, p. 39 (case originally registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-180/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-534/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Mehmet Arslan v Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud (Czech Republic) lodged on 20 October 2011 — Mehmet Arslan v Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie
   (Case C-534/11)
   2012/C 65/03
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Nejvyšší správní soud

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mehmet Arslan

      Defendant: Policie ČR, Krajské ředitelství policie Ústeckého kraje, odbor cizinecké policie

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 2(1), in conjunction with recital 9 of the preamble, of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (1) be interpreted to mean that this Directive does not apply to a third-country national who has applied for international protection within the meaning of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status? (2)

               2.

               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must the detention of a foreign national for the purpose of return be terminated if he applies for international protection within the meaning of Directive 2005/85/EC and there are no other reasons to keep him in detention?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 326, p. 13.


title: Case C-482/17: Action brought on 9 August 2017 — Czech Republic v European Parliament, Council of the European Union

text:
               23.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/4

         Action brought on 9 August 2017 — Czech Republic v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-482/17)
   (2017/C 357/06)
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, O. Serdula and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents)

      Defendants: European Parliament, Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Directive (EU) 2017/853 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2017 amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons; (1)

               —

               order the European Parliament and the Council to pay the costs.

         In the alternative, the applicant asks the Court to:

               —

               annul Article 1(6) of the contested directive, in so far as it inserts Article 5(3) and the second subparagraph of Article 6(6) into Directive 91/477/EEC; (2)

               —

               annul Article 1(7) of the contested directive, in so far as it inserts Article 7(4a) into Directive 91/477/EEC;

               —

               annul Article 1(19) of the contested directive, in so far as:

                           —

                           it inserts points 6, 7 and 8 into Category A of Part II of Annex I to Directive 91/477/EEC;

                           —

                           it amends Category B of Part II of Annex I to Directive 91/477/EEC;

                           —

                           it inserts point 6 into Category C of Part II of Annex I to Directive 91/477/EEC;

                           —

                           it amends Part III of Annex I to Directive 91/477/EEC;

               —

               order the European Parliament and the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The first plea in law alleges breach of the principle of the conferral of powers. The contested directive was adopted on the basis of Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, even though it does not pursue the objective of eliminating obstacles to the internal market, but solely the objective of preventing crime and terrorism. The EU legislature does not, however, have power to adopt harmonising measures in this field.
   The second plea in law alleges breach of the principle of proportionality. The EU legislature did not address the question of the proportionality of the measures adopted and deliberately did not obtain sufficient information (for example, by carrying out an assessment of the consequences) in order to make an informed assessment of compliance with that principle. As a result of the lack of that assessment, the EU legislature adopted manifestly disproportionate measures consisting in the prohibition of certain kinds of semi-automatic weapons which are not however used in the European Union for committing terrorist acts, making stricter the regulation of certain minimally dangerous weapons (historical replicas or weapons shown to have been permanently deactivated), and not least affecting the possession of certain magazines.
   The third plea in law alleges breach of the principle of legal certainty. The newly delimited categories of prohibited weapons (A7 and A8), like the provision constituting an interference with the possession of magazines above the limit, are altogether unclear from the point of view of legal certainty, and therefore do not enable the persons concerned unambiguously to discern their rights and obligations. Article 7(4a) of Directive 91/477/EEC, as amended by the contested directive, (the ‘grandfathering clause’) moreover effectively forces Member States to adopt national legislation that will have retroactive effects.
   The fourth plea in law alleges breach of the principle of non-discrimination. The exception in the second subparagraph of Article 6(6) of Directive 91/477/EEC, as amended by the contested directive, admittedly gives the impression of a seemingly neutral measure, but in fact the conditions of its application are determined in such a way that they are complied with only by the Swiss system of leaving a weapon after completion of military service, in which connection they lack any objective justification with respect to the objectives of the contested directive.

      (1)  OJ 2017 L 137, p. 22.

      (2)  OJ 1991 L 256, p. 51.


title: Case T-101/16: Action brought on 8 March 2016 — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen v Commission

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/35

         Action brought on 8 March 2016 — Klausner Holz Niedersachsen v Commission
   (Case T-101/16)
   (2016/C 145/43)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Klausner Holz Niedersachsen GmbH (Saalburg-Ebersdorf, Germany) (represented by: D. Reich, C. Hipp and T. Ilgner, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               find that the defendant infringed Article 108 TFEU in conjunction with Article 15(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union by failing, following receipt of the applicant’s letter of 13 November 2015, to take the decision provided for in those provisions to close the preliminary examination procedures in cases SA.37113 and SA.375009 pursuant to Article 4 of that regulation;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, even if the action should serve no purpose by reason of the adoption of a measure by the European Commission in the course of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law by which it claims that the Commission failed to take, within a reasonable period, a decision closing the preliminary examination procedure pursuant to Article 4(2) to (4) of Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, (1) despite being called upon to act pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 265 TFEU.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2015 L 248, p. 9).


title: Case T-42/13: Order of the General Court of 19 November 2013 — 1. garantovaná v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom — Fines — Late-payment interest — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/17

         Order of the General Court of 19 November 2013 — 1. garantovaná v Commission
   (Case T-42/13) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Fines - Late-payment interest - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility)
   2014/C 15/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: 1. garantovaná a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented: initially by M. Powell, Solicitor, G. Forwood, Barrister, M. Staroň and P. Hodál, lawyers, and subsequently by K. Lasok QC, J. Holmes, B. Hartnett, Barristers, and O. Geiss, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka, F. Dintilhac and N. von Lingen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision allegedly contained in the Commission’s letter of 21 December 2012 (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), whereby the Commission asked the applicant to pay the outstanding amount of the fine imposed by Commission decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, together with late-payment interest, or to provide the Commission with a bank guarantee covering that amount.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               1. garantovaná a.s. shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case F-94/15: Action brought on 30 June 2015 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/83

         Action brought on 30 June 2015 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-94/15)
   (2015/C 294/101)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s questioning the result of the EEAS Staff Committee elections.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the appointing authority’s decision of 23 April 2015 validating the EEAS Staff Committee elections, the result of which was published on 17 March 2015;

               —

               order the EEAS to pay the costs.


title: Case C-529/10: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Safilo Spa (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure — Direct taxation — Conclusion of proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters — Abuse of rights — Article 4(3) TEU — Freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty — Principle of non-discrimination — State aid — Obligation to ensure the effective application of European Union law)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/6

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 29 March 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Italy) — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v Safilo Spa
   (Case C-529/10) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure - Direct taxation - Conclusion of proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters - Abuse of rights - Article 4(3) TEU - Freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty - Principle of non-discrimination - State aid - Obligation to ensure the effective application of European Union law)
   2012/C 194/09
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate

      Defendant: Safilo Spa

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Taxation of companies — National legislation under which the tax rate applied to company dividends varies according to the location of the company seat — Commercial transaction involving companies with their seat in Italy and companies resident elsewhere — Decision by the tax authorities treating as applicable the tax due in the case of the companies resident outside Italy — Notion of abuse of rights, as defined in Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others [2006] ECR I-1609 — Whether that doctrine applies in the context of non-harmonised domestic taxes such as direct taxes

      Operative part of the order

   European Union law, in particular the principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights, Article 4(3) TEU, the freedoms guaranteed by the FEU Treaty, the principle of non-discrimination, the rules on State aid and the obligation to ensure the effective application of European Union law, must be interpreted as not precluding the application, in a case such as that in the main proceedings relating to direct taxation, of a provision of national law which provides for proceedings pending before the court giving judgment at final instance in tax matters to be concluded in return for payment of a sum equivalent to 5 % of the value of the claim, where those proceedings originate in an application made at first instance more than 10 years before the date of entry into force of that provision and the tax authorities have been unsuccessful at first and second instance.

      (1)  OJ C 30, 29.1.2011.


title: Case T-261/11: Order of the General Court of 27 March 2012 — European Goldfields v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Subsidy granted by the Greek authorities in favour of the mining company Ellinikos Xrysos consisting of the transfer of the Cassandra mines at a price lower than the real market value and exemption from taxes on that transaction — Decision declaring the aid unlawful and ordering its recovery, with interest — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               26.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/29

         Order of the General Court of 27 March 2012 — European Goldfields v Commission
   (Case T-261/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Subsidy granted by the Greek authorities in favour of the mining company Ellinikos Xrysos consisting of the transfer of the Cassandra mines at a price lower than the real market value and exemption from taxes on that transaction - Decision declaring the aid unlawful and ordering its recovery, with interest - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 151/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Goldfields Ltd (Whitehorse, Yukon (Canada)) (represented by: K. Adamantopoulos, E. Petritsi, E. Trova and P. Skouris, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/452/EU of 23 February 2011 on the State aid C 48/08 (ex NN 61/08) implemented by Greece in favour of Ellinikos Xrysos SA (OJ 2011 L 193, p. 27).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being inadmissible.

               2.

               European Goldfields Ltd shall pay the costs.

               3.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application for leave to intervene by Ellinikos Xrysos AE Metalleion kai Viomixanias Xrysou.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.


title: Case C-96/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2007 — Ecotrade SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova 3

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Genova (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2007 — Ecotrade SpA v Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova 3
   (Case C-96/07)
   (2007/C 117/06)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Geonva
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ecotrade SpA

      Defendant: Agenzia Entrate Ufficio Genova 3
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does a correct interpretation of Articles 17, 21(1) and 22 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes preclude national legislation (in particular Article 19 of DPR 633 of 26/10/72) that makes the exercise of the right to deduct value added tax, payable by a taxable person in the pursuit of his business activities, dependent on compliance with a (two-year) time limit and penalises non-compliance with annulment of that right? That question is asked with reference, in particular, to cases where the liability to VAT on the purchase of the goods or service stems from the application of the reverse charge procedure, which allows the authorities a longer period (of four years under Article 57 of DPR 633/72) in which to demand payment of the duty than the period allowed to the trader for deduction of the duty, on expiry of which the trader's right to such deduction lapses.

               2.

               Does it follow from a correct interpretation of Article 18(1)(d) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 that national legislation may not, in regulating the ‘formalities ’referred to in that provision by means of the reverse charge procedure governed by the combined provisions of Articles 17(3), 23 and 25 of DPR 633/72, make (solely to the detriment of the taxpayer) the exercise of the right to deduct permitted by Article 17 of the Directive conditional upon compliance with a time limit such as that laid down in Article 19 of DPR 633/72?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Case C-641/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2014  — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission (Appeal — Cohesion Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Public works contracts — Directive 93/37/EEC — Award criteria — Experience of previous works — Qualitative selection criteria)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/14

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 October 2014 — Kingdom of Spain v European Commission
   (Case C-641/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Cohesion Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Public works contracts - Directive 93/37/EEC - Award criteria - Experience of previous works - Qualitative selection criteria))
   (2014/C 439/20)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and A. Steiblytė, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case T-200/10: Action brought on 29 April 2010 — Avery Dennison Corp. v OHIM — Dennison Hesperia (AVERY DENNISON)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/56

      Action brought on 29 April 2010 — Avery Dennison Corp. v OHIM — Dennison Hesperia (AVERY DENNISON)
      (Case T-200/10)
      (2010/C 161/88)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Avery Dennison Corp. (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dennison Hersperia, S.A. (Torrejón de Ardoz, Spain)

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  annul or, in the alternative, amend the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 February 2010 in case R 798/2009-2;

                  —

                  order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Applicant for a Community trade mark: Avery Dennison Corp.

         Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AVERY DENNISON’ (Application No 3 825 114) for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42

         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dennison Hesperia, S.A.

         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark ‘DENNISON’ (No 1 996 088) for goods in Class 16.

         Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld.

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

         Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Articles 42(2) and (3) and, in the alternative, Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/09 on the Community trade mark.


title: Case C-151/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — UAB ‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’ v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Lithuania) lodged on 14 March 2016 — UAB ‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’ v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-151/16)
   (2016/C 191/16)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant:‘Vakarų Baltijos laivų statykla’

      Respondent: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 14(1)(c) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 (1) restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as last amended by Council Directive 2004/75/EC of 29 April 2004, (2) be interpreted as meaning that excise duty may not be levied on the supply of energy products in circumstances, such as those in the present case, in which those products are supplied as fuel for a ship to be used in navigation within [European Union] waters with the objective, not involving direct consideration, of sailing that ship under its own power from the place where it was built to a port in another Member State for the purpose of taking on its first commercial cargo?

               2.

               Does Article 14(1)(c) of Directive 2003/96 stand in the way of provisions of national legislation of Member States, such as those applicable in the present case, which preclude the benefit of the tax exemption provided for in that provision in the case where the supply of energy products was carried out in breach of the conditions laid down by the Member State, even though that supply satisfies the essential conditions for application of the exemption set out in that provision of Directive 2003/96?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 157, p. 100.


title: Case C-123/03 P: Appeal brought on 19 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the order made on 7 January 2003 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-135/02 between Greencore Group plc and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.5.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/19
Accordingly, the Commission is of the view that                          Pleas in law and main arguments
Article R. 5142-15 of the French Public Health Code is such
as to hinder, directly and indirectly, actually or potentially,
intra-Community trade and that it therefore amounts to a
measure of an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction,           In August 1997 Irish Sugar complied with the Commission
prohibited by Article 28 of the EC Treaty.                               decision 97/624/EC of 14 May 1997 and paid the fine imposed
                                                                         on it. The Court of First Instance subsequently reduced the fine
                                                                         by judgment of 7 October 1999. When submitting details
The French legislation is discriminatory and can therefore be            about its bank account so that the part of the fine unduly
justified only on grounds of public interest as provided for in          levied could be reimbursed, Greencore (Irish Sugar’s mother
Article 30 of the EC Treaty.                                             company) also asked for confirmation that interest would be
                                                                         paid. On 4 January 2000 the Commission reimbursed the
                                                                         principal amount without interest thus, in the Commission’s
However, even leaving aside its discriminatory character, it             view, refusing to grant the request concerning interest.
must be pointed out that the measure in issue is unjustifiable.
In the internal market, the mere fact that a Community
product originates abroad cannot give rise to a suspicion that
it is non-compliant.                                                     Greencore did not react until after the judgment in case T-171/
                                                                         99 ‘Corus’ of 10 October 2001, in which the Court of First
                                                                         Instance stated that the Commission would have to pay interest
Even supposing that that measure could have been prompted                on a fine unduly levied. On 1 November 2001, almost two
by the objective of protecting human health and life, the                years after reimbursement of the part of the fine unduly levied,
objective of verifying whether a marketing authorisation has             Greencore, referring to the ‘Corus’ judgment, requested the
been granted could be attained as effectively by a system which          payment of interest on the amount of the fine reimbursed. By
is less of an obstacle to intra-Community trade, for example             letter of 11 February 2002 the Accounting Officer of the
by a system based on the checking of the number of the                   Commission informed Greencore that, when it requested the
marketing authorisation appearing on the external packaging              payment of interest on the amount of the fine unduly levied
of the medicinal product.                                                on 27 October 1999, the Commission only reimbursed the
                                                                         principal sum and had, therefore, already refused to pay
                                                                         interest at that date.
                                                                         Before the Court of First Instance the Commission raised an
                                                                         objection of inadmissibility arguing that the letter of 11 Febru-
Appeal brought on 19 March 2003 by the Commission of                     ary 2002 had not in any way changed the applicant’s legal
the European Communities against the order made on                       position. The Commission submitted that the letter merely
7 January 2003 by the Second Chamber of the Court of                     informed the applicant that it had failed to attack the
First Instance of the European Communities in case T-135/                Commission decision of 4 January 2000 not to grant interest
02 (1) between Greencore Group plc and the Commission                    and was therefore precluded from attacking that decision
                 of the European Communities                             now, taking advantage of a judgment obtained by another
                                                                         undertaking in a separate Court procedure.
                         (Case C-123/03 P)
                          (2003/C 112/33)                                The Commission submits that the Court of First Instance
                                                                         committed an error in law in rejecting the objection of
                                                                         inadmissibility. In the Commission’s view the Court of First
                                                                         Instance infringed Article 230 EC by declaring admissible an
An appeal against the order made on 7 January 2003 by the                action for annulment against an act that is not challengeable,
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European            since it does not bring about a distinct change in the applicant’s
Communities in case T-135/02 between Greencore Group plc                 legal position. According to the Commission the letter of
and the Commission of the European Communities, was                      11 February is a simple information telling the applicant that
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             it should have attacked the decision of 4 January 2000 refusing
ties on 19 March 2003 by the Commission of the European                  interest. It does not alter the applicant’s position in any way,
Communities, represented by K. Wiedner, acting as agent, with            since the Commission does not consider or re-consider the
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                    applicant’s right to receive payment of interest. There are,
                                                                         furthermore, no substantial new facts which should have
                                                                         prompted the Commission to re-examine its initial position.
The Appellant claims that the Court should:
—      annul the order of 7 January and declare the application
       inadmissible;                                                     (1 ) OJ C 169, 13.07.2002, p. 38.
—      order the applicant to bear the costs incurred before the
       Court of First Instance as well as the Court of Justice.


title: Case T-406/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission (Public service contracts — Invitation to tender concerning support services for the system of registries established under Directive 2003/87/EC — Rejection of a tender — Decision to award the contract to another tenderer — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Claim for damages)

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 November 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-406/06) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Invitation to tender concerning support services for the system of registries established under Directive 2003/87/EC - Rejection of a tender - Decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Claim for damages)
   (2009/C 6/48)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Wilderspin and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Application for, first, annulment of the Commission's decision of 19 October 2006 to reject the applicant's offer in a call for tenders for support services for the system of registries established under Directive 2003/87/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), the Community independent transaction log (CITL), with technical maintenance and user support (OJ 2006 S 102), and an application for annulment of the decision to award the contract to another tenderer and, secondly, a claim for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay its own costs and those incurred by the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 42, 24.2.2007.


title: Case T-420/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 2009 — Vischim v Commission (Plant protection products — Active substance chlorothalonil — Inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC — Assessment procedure — Directive 2005/53/EC — Application for annulment — Application for a declaration of failure to act — Application for damages)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 October 2009 — Vischim v Commission
   (Case T-420/05) (1)

   (Plant protection products - Active substance chlorothalonil - Inclusion in Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC - Assessment procedure - Directive 2005/53/EC - Application for annulment - Application for a declaration of failure to act - Application for damages)
   2009/C 282/70
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Vischim Srl (Cesano Maderno, Italy) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and L. Parpala, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, with regard to the inclusion of the active substance chlorothalonil, of Commission Directive 2005/53/EC of 16 September 2005 amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC to include chlorothalonil, chlorotoluron, cypermethrin, daminozide and thiophanate-methyl as active substances (OJ 2005 L 241, p. 51), for annulment of the review report for chlorothalonil (document SANCO/4343/2000 final of 14 February 2005), for a declaration of failure to act and for damages.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Vischim Srl to pay the costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

      (1)  OJ C 36, 11.2.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-33/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Articles 17 and 18 of the Sixth VAT Directive — Provision of national law under which an employer may deduct VAT on supplies of fuel to his employees when reimbursing their fuel costs)

text:
               14.5.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 115/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-33/03: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 17 and 18 of the Sixth VAT Directive - Provision of national law under which an employer may deduct VAT on supplies of fuel to his employees when reimbursing their fuel costs)
   (2005/C 115/04)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-33/03, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought before the Court on 28 January 2003 — Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: P. Ormond and C. Jackson, assisted by N. Pleming QC) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, K. Schiemann and E. Juhász, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 March 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by granting taxable persons the right to deduct value added tax on certain supplies of fuel to non-taxable persons, contrary to the provisions of Articles 17(2)(a) and 18(1)(a) 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, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

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

      (1)  OJ C 83 of 05.04.2003.


title: Case C-181/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Francesco Acanfora v Equitalia Sud SpA and Agenzia delle Entrate

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina (Italy) lodged on 12 April 2013 — Francesco Acanfora v Equitalia Sud SpA and Agenzia delle Entrate
   (Case C-181/13)
   2013/C 207/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria provinciale di Latina

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Francesco Acanfora

      Defendants: Equitalia Sud SpA — Agente di Riscossione Latina, Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Latina

      Question referred

   Does the 9 % commission premium (‘aggio’) [established by Legislative Decree No 112/1999, prior to the amendments which have been introduced] constitute State aid which is incompatible with the single market as regards fees for collection and with Community law pursuant to Article 107 TFEU?


title: Case T-645/15: Action brought on 13/11/2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/59

         Action brought on 13/11/2015 — České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku v Parliament
   (Case T-645/15)
   (2016/C 048/67)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: České centrum pro investigativní žurnalistiku o.p.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8682 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  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: Judgment of the Court of 22 November 2001 in Case C-110/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council of the European Union (Arrangements for association of overseas countries and territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regulation (EC) No 304/97 — Action for annulment)

text:
19.1.2002               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 17/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                                                                             has given a judgment on 22 November 2001, in which it:
                      of 22 November 2001                                    1.    Dismisses the action as unfounded.
                                                                             2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
in Case C-110/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council
                    of the European Union (1)                                3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Italian
                                                                                Republic, and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                to bear their own costs.
(Arrangements for association of overseas countries and
territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas                    (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regu-
       lation (EC) No 304/97 — Action for annulment)
                          (2002/C 17/01)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                of 22 November 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             in Case C-301/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Council
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                of the European Union (1)
                                                                             (Arrangements for association of overseas countries and
                                                                             territories — Imports of rice originating in the overseas
                                                                             countries and territories — Safeguard measures — Regu-
In Case C-110/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent:
                                                                                lation (EC) No 1036/97 — Action for annulment)
M.A. Fierstra) v Council of the European Union (Agents:
R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin), supported by Kingdom
of Spain (Agent: L. Pérez de Ayala Becerril), French Republic                                           (2002/C 17/02)
(Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Chavance), Italian Republic
(Agent: by U. Leanza and F. Quadri), and Commission of the                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
European Communities (Agent: T. van Rijn) — application
for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 304/97 of                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in respect                                       in the European Court Reports)
of imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and
territories (OJ 1997 L 51, p. 1) — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann and F. Macken
(Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                           In Case C-301/97: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.P. Puissochet, L. Sevón,                    J.S. van den Oosterkamp and M.A. Fierstra) v Council of the
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger,                  European Union (Agents: R. Torrent, J. Huber and G. Houttuin),


title: Case C-468/14: Action brought on 13 October 2014  — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/25

         Action brought on 13 October 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-468/14)
   (2014/C 439/34)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Clausen. C. Cattabriga, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Denmark

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by maintaining a legal situation in which the sale of loose snuff is permitted contrary to Article 8, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) of Directive 2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (1), the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               the order Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive 2001/37/EC by prohibiting only sales of snuff in porous portion sachets, but not loose snuff, in Denmark. Denmark has not disputed that its national rules do not comply with EU law in so far as regards the prohibition of marketing of tobacco for oral use. A legislative proposal which would have introduced a complete prohibition on the sale of snuff in Denmark was, however, rejected by the Danish Parliament (Folketing).
   Denmark has not given any further commitments that it will bring Danish rules into line with EU law. The Commission must accordingly conclude that Denmark has still failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of the Directive, read in conjunction with Article 2(4) thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26.


title: Case C-197/05 P: Appeal brought on 4 May 2005 by Energy Technologies ET SA against the order made on 28 February 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-445/04 between Energy Technologies ET SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Aparellaje eléctrico, SL

text:
               1.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/2

         Appeal brought on 4 May 2005 by Energy Technologies ET SA against the order made on 28 February 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-445/04 between Energy Technologies ET SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Aparellaje eléctrico, SL
   (Case C-197/05 P)
   (2005/C 243/03)
   Language of the case: English
   An appeal against the order made on 28 February 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-445/04 (1) between Energy Technologies ET SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Aparellaje eléctrico, SL, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May 2005 by Energy Technologies ET SA, established in Fribourg (Switzerland), represented by Ms A. Boman.
   The Appellant

               1)

               claims that the Court annuls the contested decision and remands the case to the Court of First Instance for trial of the trade mark matter.

               2)

               requests further respite of six months in order to be able to evaluate the need for further substantiation of this appeal and possibly for submittance of expert opinion.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In the appealed decision the Court of First Instance dismissed the application on the grounds that Energy Technologies ET SA was not represented by a lawyer pursuant to Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
   The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance has misinterpreted Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and that its finding that the appellant was not represented by a lawyer within the terms of that Article is incorrect.

      (1)  OJ C 182, 23.07.2005, p. 36