title: Case C-261/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság by order of that court of 29 April 2005 in Lakél Kft., Pár-Bau Kft. and Rottelma Kft. v Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság by order of that court of 29 April 2005 in Lakél Kft., Pár-Bau Kft. and Rottelma Kft. v Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal
   (Case C-261/05)
   (2005/C 205/24)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Bíróság (County Court, Komárom-Esztergom) of 29 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 22 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Lakép Kft., Pár-Bau Kft. and Rottelma Kft. and Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal on the following questions:

               1.

               What, according to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1) of 17 May 1977, are the criteria which allow a tax to be characterised as a tax having the nature of a turnover tax?

               2.

               Should a tax the taxable basis of which is the net turnover corresponding to sales made or to services provided, after deduction of the purchase price of the goods sold and the value of the services provided by third parties, and also of the material costs (or a certain proportion thereof), be regarded as having the nature of a turnover tax?

               3.

               Is Article 33 of the directive to be taken to mean that in the Member States only a single tax having the nature of a turnover tax may be maintained?

               4.

                  In so far as two or more taxes having the nature of turnover taxes are maintained in a Member State after accession to the European Union, is the assessment, with retroactive effect, of a tax — relating to a period before accession — contrary to Article 33 of the directive?

      (1)  OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.


title: Case C-488/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/50/EC — Ambient air quality — Article 13(1) — Annex XI — Daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations — Systematic and continuous exceedance of the limit values — Article 22 — Postponement of the deadlines set to attain certain limit values — Conditions under which applicable — Article 23(1) — Air quality plans — ‘Shortest possible’ exceedance period — Appropriate measures — Information needed for an assessment)

text:
               29.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 168/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 April 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-488/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/50/EC - Ambient air quality - Article 13(1) - Annex XI - Daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations - Systematic and continuous exceedance of the limit values - Article 22 - Postponement of the deadlines set to attain certain limit values - Conditions under which applicable - Article 23(1) - Air quality plans - ‘Shortest possible’ exceedance period - Appropriate measures - Information needed for an assessment))
   (2017/C 168/12)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. Kružíková, S. Petrova, P. Mihaylova and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria (represented by: E. Petranova and M. Georgieva, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: A. Gawłowska, B. Majczyna and D. Krawczyk, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that:

                           —

                           by exceeding the daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations systematically and continuously from 2007 until 2014 inclusive in the zones and agglomerations BG0001 AG Sofia, BG0002 AG Plovdiv, BG0004 North Bulgaria, BG0005 South-West Bulgaria and BG0006 South-East Bulgaria;

                           —

                           by exceeding the daily limit value for PM10 concentrations systematically and continuously from 2007 until 2014 inclusive in the zone BG0003 AG Varna and the annual limit value in 2007, 2008 and from 2010 until 2014 inclusive in zone BG0003 AG Varna,
                           the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of Article 13(1) of, in conjunction with Annex XI to, Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, and

                           —

                           in view of the fact that the daily and annual limit values for PM10 concentrations in all of the abovementioned zones and agglomerations continued to be exceeded, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under the second subparagraph of Article 23(1) of that directive and in particular the obligation to keep the exceedance period as short as possible, as regards the period from 11 June 2010 to the year 2014 inclusive;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Bulgaria to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 389, 23.11.2015.


title: Case F-112/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Dalmasso v Commission (Civil Service — Remuneration — Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other EU staff — Articles 64, 65 and 65a of the Staff Regulations — Annex XI to the Staff Regulations — Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 — Corrective coefficients — Officials assigned to Ispra)

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/33

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — Dalmasso v Commission
   (Case F-112/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Remuneration - Annual adjustment of the remuneration and pensions of officials and other EU staff - Articles 64, 65 and 65a of the Staff Regulations - Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 - Corrective coefficients - Officials assigned to Ispra)
   2013/C 147/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Raffaele Dalmasso (Monvalle, Italy) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the applicant’s salary slip for the month of February 2011 and the salary slips for the following months applying the new corrective coefficient for the town of Varese in accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 1239/2010 of 20 December 2010.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Dalmasso to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 27.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by decision of that court of 19 March 1996 in the case of Stefan Demand v. Hauptzollamt Trier (Case C-186/96)

text:
20 . 7 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 210/9
the European Communities, represented by Hendrik Van                  protection of property and the principles of equal treatment
Lier and Jean-Francis Pasquier, acting as Agents, with an             and protection of legitimate expectations ?
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez
de la Cruz, of its Legal Service .                                    (') OJ No L 405 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) Official Journal , English Special Edition 1968 I, p . 176 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          ( 3 ) OJ No L 86 , 1 . 4 . 1992 , p . 83 .
— declare that, by adopting Decree No 93-999 of 9 August
     1993 relating to preparations with a basis of foie gras,
    without taking account of the contents of the detailed
    opinion and the .reasoned opinion of the Commission
    concerning mutual recognition, the French Republic has
    failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the          Action brought on 3 June 1996 by the Commission of the
    Treaty,                                                                European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                ( Case C-187/96 )
— order the French Republic to pay the costs .                                                     ( 96/C 210/21 )
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice on 3 June 1 996 by the Commission of
Infringement of Article 30 of the EC Treaty : the                     the European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia,
Commission considers that, while the prevention of fraud              of the Commission's Legal Service , with an address for
constitutes a legitimate objective, national rules preventing         service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlo Gômez de la
the marketing, under the names provided for therein, of               Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner
products which do not comply with the requirements laid               Centre, Kirchberg.
down in those rules are disproportionate . The Commission
acknowledges that, in the absence of any equivalent rules in
the other Member States, the mutual recognition provision             The applicant claims that the Court should :
which it requires will not have any immediate effect;
however, it regards such a provision as necessary, in order           — declare that, in so far as it excludes, by regulation or
that the marketing in France of preparations with a basis of                administrative practice, account being taken in
foie gras which are legally manufactured and marketed on                    awarding seniority and grading for salary purposes to an
the territory of another Member State should not be                         employee in the Greek public service of previous service
prohibited in the future .                                                  in the public service of another Member State of the
                                                                            Community, on the sole ground that the previous service
                                                                            was not performed in the national public service, the
                                                                            Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under
                                                                            Community law, in particular Articles 5 and 48 of the
                                                                            EC Treaty and Article 7 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                            No 1612/68 ( M ,
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesfinanzhof by decision of that court of 19 March
1996 in the case of Stefan Demand v. Hauptzollamt                     — order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs .
                               Trier
                         ( Case C-186/96 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                            96/C 210/20 )
                                                                      In the Commission's view, the said regulations, although
                                                                      not comprising express discrimination by reason of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                nationality, nevertheless introduce covert discrimination to
European Communities by decision of the Bundesfinanzhof               the detriment of nationals of other Member States of the
( Federal Finance Court ) of 19 March 1996 , which was                Community . The fact that in certain cases previous service in
received at the Court Registry on 3 June 1996 , for a                 a foreign public service will , exceptionally, be recognized
preliminary ruling in the case of Stefan Demand v.                    corroborates non-recognition in all other cases . Moreover,
Hauptzollamt Trier on the following question :                        the case-law of the Areios Pagos ( Greek Supreme Court of
                                                                      Cassation ), which is consistent with Community law, on the
Are the combined provisions of Article 4(1 ) and the first            matter, relied upon by the Greek authorities, shows that the
paragraph of Article 3 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3950/92 (')           regulations in question are obscure and give rise to legal
— whereby the suspension , under Article 5 c ( 3 ) ( g ) of           disputes .
Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 ( 2 ), as amended by Regulation
( EEC ) No 8 1 6/92 ( 3 ), of part of the reference quantities       The Commission maintains that those regulations are
allocated to producers was transformed without                       capable of deterring Greek citizens from exercising their
compensation into a permanent reduction of those reference            right to free movement within the Community and adds that
quantities, without exempting from that reduction at least            although the Member States are free, in the absence of
additional quantities acquired by producers — compatible              harmonization, to lay down the conditions under which
with Community law, and in particular with the right to the          previous service in the public sector will be recognized,


title: Joined Cases C-74/10 P and C-75/10 P: Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2010 — European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL v European Commission (Appeal — Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice — Representation of a party by a lawyer who is not a third party — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/9

         Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 September 2010 — European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL v European Commission
   (Joined Cases C-74/10 P and C-75/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice - Representation of a party by a lawyer who is not a third party - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2011/C 80/15
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL (represented by: J. Kuhbier, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: B. Martenczuk and N. Khan, Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal lodged against the order of the Court of First Instance (Sixth Chamber) of 19 November 2009 in Case T-94/07 EREF v Commission, in which the Court dismissed as manifestly inadmissible an action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(2006) 4963 final of 24 October 2006 declaring that certain sources of finance used by TVO for the construction of a nuclear reactor in Finland (‘Olkiluoto 3 Project’) do not constitute State aid — Representation by a lawyer who is not a third party

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeals are dismissed.

               2.

               European Renewable Energies Federation ASBL shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 1.5.2010.


title: Case T-484/11: Action brought on 8 September 2011 — Skyhawke Technologies v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting et Sky IP (SKYCADDIE)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/27

         Action brought on 8 September 2011 — Skyhawke Technologies v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting et Sky IP (SKYCADDIE)
   (Case T-484/11)
   2011/C 319/55
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Skyhawke Technologies, LLC (USA) (represented by: K. Gilbert and M. Blair, Solicitors)

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

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 June 2011 in case R 501/2010-4; and

               —

               Order the defendant and the other parties to the procedure to bear their own costs and pay the costs of the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SKYCADDIE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 25, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 4264685

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3203411 of the word mark ‘SKY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2302176B of the word mark ‘SKY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 28, 36, 41, 42, 43 and 45; Community trade mark registration No 3166337 of the figurative mark in black and white ‘SKY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2044507A of the word mark ‘SKY’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2197682 of the figurative mark in black and white ‘SKY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42; United Kingdom well-known mark ‘SKY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 38 and 41; United Kingdom non-registered mark ‘SKY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 38 and 41;

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed: (i) to appreciate that there were sufficient visual, aural and conceptual differences between the marks particularly with respect to its analysis of the conceptual meanings of the marks; and (ii) to properly take into consideration the level of attention of the average consumer of the category of goods concerned.


title: Case T-370/11: Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Poland v Commission (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 — Benchmarks to be applied to calculate the allocation of emission allowances — Equal treatment — Proportionality)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 March 2013 — Poland v Commission
   (Case T-370/11) (1)

   (Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances from 2013 - Benchmarks to be applied to calculate the allocation of emission allowances - Equal treatment - Proportionality)
   2013/C 114/54
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Poland (represented by: M. Szpunar, B. Majczyna, C. Herma and M. Nowacki, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, K. Herrmann and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 2011/278/EU of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of Poland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 290, 1.10.2011.


title: Case C-113/03: Action brought on 13 March 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 112/16               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           10.5.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Grenoble (Commercial Chamber) of 20 February 2003,
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 13 March 2003, for a
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Société Financière & Industriel-
                                                                         le du Peloux, formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against
The Swedish provisions on compulsory prior notification
                                                                         Société AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge,
(announcement by the national food administration (Livsmed-
                                                                         and Others on the following question:
elsverket) of 25 December 1998 — SLV FS 1998:39) are
inconsistent with the purpose of Directive 89/662/EEC in so
far as they do not recognise other checks carried out in other
Member States. It is true that spot checks are allowed under             May the insured beneficiary of a contract of insurance
Directive 89/662/EEC but the possibility of carrying out spot
                                                                         concluded on its behalf between a policyholder (subscribed)
checks cannot be used by a Member State to monitor the                   and an insurer who are domiciled in the same Member State,
effectiveness of the observance by other Member States of                be made subject to the clause conferring jurisdiction on the
another regulatory system. Article 3 of Directive 89/662/EEC
                                                                         courts of that State, when it has not personally approved the
provides not only for official veterinary checks on production           clause, when the damage occurred in another Member State
establishments but also for regular checks to be carried out by
                                                                         and when it has also applied for insurers domiciled in the same
the competent authorities on establishments to ensure that the           State to be joined as parties to proceedings before a court of
products comply with the Community requirements or the                   that State?
requirements of the Member State of destination. Furthermore,
under Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 89/662 goods cannot
circulate freely if they are not marked in a certain manner and
accompanied by the necessary documentation.
The Swedish Government has submitted that the notification
requirement is necessary to ensure observance of the special
salmonella guarantees which apply on importation of certain
animal products into Sweden. In that connection, the Com-
mission points out that Directive 89/662/EEC offers a Member
State ample opportunity to take steps in the event that                  Action brought on 13 March 2003 by the Commission of
breaches of Community rules are discovered when samples are               the European Communities against the French Republic
taken. For instance, Article 8 of the Directive lays down the
procedure to be applied if breaches are discovered by the
Member State of destination.                                                                      (Case C-113/03)
( 1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.                                                                        (2003/C 112/27)
                                                                         An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 March
                                                                         2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                         represented by Ch. Giolitto and M. Shotter, acting as Agents,
                                                                         with an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel,
Grenoble, by judgment of that Court of 20 February 2003
in the case of Société Financière & Industrielle du Peloux,
formerly known as Sodequip Isolation, against Société
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should :
AXA Belgium, formerly known as AXA Royale Belge, and
                              Others
                                                                         —    Declare that, by failing to ensure that portability of non-
                                                                              geographic numbers was available on 1 January 2000 at
                         (Case C-112/03)                                      the latest, as required by Article 12(5) of Directive 97/33/
                                                                              EC ( 1), as amended by Article 1(2) of Directive 98/61/EC
                                                                              of the European Parliament and of the Council of
                         (2003/C 112/26)                                      24 September 1998 with regard to operator number
                                                                              portability and carrier pre-selection ( 2), the French Repub-
                                                                              lic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                              and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’Appel,                    —    Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.5.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 112/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             Action brought on 17 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
France was required to transpose and apply the provision
referred to in the application with effect from 1 January 2000.                                       (Case C-118/03)
It appears from the replies submitted of the French authorities
that, with the exception of numbers which are free of                                                 (2003/C 112/29)
charge (‘freephone numbers’) and of shared-cost numbers, the
remaining non-geographic numbers are not covered by the
measures which have been established.
                                                                            An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
( 1) Directive 97/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council       ties on 17 March 2003 by the Commission of the European
     of 30 June 1997 on interconnection in Telecommunications with          Communities, represented by Ulrich Wölker, legal advisor, and
     regard to ensuring universal service and interoperability through      Hans Støvlbæk, of its legal service, with an address for service
     application of the principles of Open Network Provision (ONP)          in Luxembourg.
     — OJ L 199, 26.7.1997, p. 32.
( 2) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998, p. 37.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            1.    Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative provisions necessary to implement
                                                                                Commission Directive 2000/37/EC ( 1) of 5 June 2000
                                                                                amending Chapter VIa ‘Pharmacovigilance’ of Council
                                                                                Directive 81/851/EEC on the approximation of the laws
                                                                                of the Member States relating to veterinary medicinal
                                                                                products or by failing to inform the Commission of those
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di                            provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
Genova — Prima sezione civile by order of that Court of                           fulfil its obligations under that directive;
10 March 2003 in the civil proceedings brought by
Eco Eridania S.r.l. against Ministero dell’Ambiente and
                                                                            2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
              Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
                          (Case C-115/03)
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2003/C 112/28)                                   The period for implementing the directive expired on 5 Decem-
                                                                            ber 2001.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ L 139, 10.6.2000, p. 25.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Genova
— Prima sezione civile (Genoa District Court, First Civil
Chamber) of 10 March 2003, received at the Court Registry
on 17 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the civil
proceedings brought by Eco Eridania S.r.l. against Ministero
dell’Ambiente and Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri on the
following question:                                                         Action brought on 18 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                             the European Communities against the French Republic
Does the obligation under Article 4 of Directive 91/689/                                              (Case C-119/03)
EEC ( 1) apply to all producers of hazardous waste (including
dental surgeons’ practices) or merely to producers of hazardous
                                                                                (2003/C 112/30)
waste whose business is organised in the form of an undertak-
ing or institution?
                                                                            An action against the French Republic was brought before the
( 1) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20.                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 March
                                                                            2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                            service in Luxembourg.


title: Case T-183/04: Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Tokai Europe GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/21

         Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Tokai Europe GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-183/04)
   (2004/C 217/39)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 2004 by Tokai Europe GmbH, Mönchengladbach (Germany), represented by G. Kroemer, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004 of 1 March 2004 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature; (1)

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant manufactures cigarette lighters and imports cigarette lighters and parts for cigarette lighters. It contests Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004.
   The applicant submits that, by classifying, in the contested regulation, the base metal wheels imported for the manufacture of cigarette lighters in Mexico and Hong Kong as parts (of cigarette lighters) under subheading 961390 of the customs nomenclature, the Commission extended the scope of that subheading beyond its wording. As a result, primary products also used in other goods which cannot be classed under heading 9613 were classified as parts for cigarette lighters. The Commission thereby exceeded the limits of its discretion.
   The applicant also claims that, in taking account of the intended use of the metal wheels in the manufacture of cigarette lighters, the Commission acted in breach of the principle that goods are to be classified according to their objective nature. In the reasons stated in the regulation, express reference is made to the wheels' intended use.
   Moreover, the applicant submits that, when classifying the metal wheels, the Commission failed to comply with the explanatory notes on the Harmonised System (HS) issued by the Customs Cooperation Council in that, as is stated in the reasons, it based the classification of the wheels in the customs tariff on the criterion of intended use rather than applying the criterion of appearance.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21.


title: Case C-424/03: Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain

text:
C 275/42              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                     15.11.2003
Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission                       Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Republic of                      of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                             Finland                                                                   Spain
                        (Case C-423/03)                                                          (Case C-424/03)
                        (2003/C 275/67)                                                          (2003/C 275/68)
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                  An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 Octo-
Communities, represented by U. Wölker and M. Huttunen,                   ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.             represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana of the Commission’s
                                                                         Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Directive 2001/18/EC of the European             —     declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the                    and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      deliberate release into the environment of genetically                   Directive 2001/18/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
      modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/                   of the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release
      220/EEC (1), since Finland has not brought into force the                into the environment of genetically modified organisms
      laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary                and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC, or, in any
      to comply with the directive, or at least has not informed               event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the
      the Commission thereof;                                                  Kingdom of Spain has failed to comply with its obli-
                                                                               gations under that directive;
2.    Order Finland to pay the costs.
                                                                         —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired
on 17 October 2002.
                                                                         The period for transposition into national law of the directive
                                                                         expired on 17 October 2002.
(1) OJ L 106 of 17.4.2001, p. 1.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 106 of 17.4.2001, p. 1.


title: Case T-75/08: Action brought on 13 February 2008 — JOOP! v OHIM (!)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/33

         Action brought on 13 February 2008 — JOOP! v OHIM (!)
   (Case T-75/08)
   (2008/C 107/55)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: JOOP! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by H. Schmidt-Hollburg and W. Möllering, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 26 November 2007 in Case R 1134/2007-1;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs including those incurred during the appeal proceedings

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘!’ for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25 (application No 5 332 184)

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the mark applied for has distinctive character and its availability does not have to be preserved.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Case T-160/05: Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Dag Johansson and Others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/27

         Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Dag Johansson and Others against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-160/05)
   (2005/C 171/44)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 April 2005 by Dag Johansson, residing in Brussels, and three other officials, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decisions to appoint the applicants as officials of the European Communities in that they fix their grade on recruitment pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments put forward are the same as those in Case T-130/05 and similar to those in Case T-58/05.


title: Case C-274/11: Action brought on 3 June 2011 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

text:
               23.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 219/12

         Action brought on 3 June 2011 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-274/11)
   2011/C 219/16
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/167/EU; (1)

               —

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

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                     Misuse of powers since recourse was had to enhanced cooperation
                   although the purpose is not to achieve integration of all the Member States — the mechanism having been used instead to avoid negotiating with a Member State, imposing upon it an opt-out solution — and although the objectives pursued in this instance could have been achieved by means of a special agreement as provided for in Article 142 of the European Patent Convention. (2)

               2.

                     Failure to respect the judicial system of the EU
                   in that no dispute resolution system is provided for in relation to certain legal rights subject to EU law.

               3.

                     In the alternative
                  , should the Court find that it is appropriate in this instance to have recourse to enhanced cooperation and that it is possible to establish substantive rules for legal rights subject to EU law without making provision for a dispute resolution system in relation to those rights, the Kingdom of Spain submits that the necessary conditions for enhanced cooperation are not met for the following reasons:

                           3.1.

                                 infringement of Article 20(1) TEU
                              , since in this instance enhanced cooperation is not a last resort and does not fulfil the objectives provided for in the TEU and since areas are referred to which are not within the scope of enhanced cooperation as they are exclusive competence of the EU.

                           3.2.

                                 infringement of Article 326 TFEU
                              , since enhanced cooperation in this instance infringes the principle of non-discrimination and undermines the internal market and economic, social and territorial cohesion, constituting discrimination in trade between Member States and distorting competition between them.

                           3.3.

                                 infringement of Article 327 TFEU
                              , since the enhanced cooperation does not respect the rights of the Kingdom of Spain, which is not participating in it.

      (1)  Council Decision 2011/167/EU of 10 March 2011 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection (OJ 2011 L 76, p. 53).

      (2)  Convention on the Grant of European Patents of 5 October 1973.


title: Case C-350/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. v Regione Toscana

text:
               2.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), lodged on 12 June 2017 — Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l. v Regione Toscana
   (Case C-350/17)
   (2017/C 330/05)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Mobit Soc.cons. a.r.l

      Respondent: Regione Toscana

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 (1) (in particular, the prohibition, laid down in subparagraphs (b) and (d), on the participation of internal operators in extra moenia tendering procedures) apply equally where a contract has been awarded prior to the entry into force of that regulation?

               2.

               May a legal person governed by public law which has been directly awarded a contract by a State authority for the provision of local transport services and which has a direct relationship with the State authority in terms of organisation and control and whose capital is owned by the State (either wholly or in part, together with other public entities) be regarded, in the abstract, as an ‘internal operator’ within the meaning of the regulation and, as the case may be, by analogy with the case-law on the subject of ‘in house provision’?

               3.

               In the case of the direct award of a contract for the provision of services falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007, if, after that award, the State authority in question (while itself retaining sole power to award concessions) establishes a public administrative authority that has power to organise the services in question but does not have ‘similar control’ over the contractor, does that fact take the award in question outside the scope of the rules in Article 5(2) of the regulation?

               4.

               If the date of expiry of a directly awarded contract falls after the end of the 30-year period ending on 3 December 2039 (that period commencing on the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007) does that render the award inconsistent with the principles laid down in the combined provisions of Articles 5 and 8(3) of the regulation, or may such an irregularity be regarded as automatically remedied, for all legal purposes, by an implied shortening of the length of the contract by operation of law (Article 8(3)), so as to fall within the 30-year period?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ 2007 L 315, p. 1).


title: Case C-41/07: Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-41/07) (1)

   (2007/C 199/43)

      Language of the case: Portuguese

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 17 October 1995 in Case C-70/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Fritz Werner Industrie-Ausrüstungen GmbH v. Federal Republic of Germany (Common commercial policy - Export of dual-use goods)

text:
25 . 11 . 95           EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 315/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   Darmstadt ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                      of 17 October 1995                               criminal proceedings pending before that court against Peter
                                                                       Leifer, Reinhold Otto Krauskopf and Otto Holzer — on the
in Case C-70/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the          interpretation of Articles 113 , 223 ( 1 ) ( b ) and 224 of the EC
Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main ): Fritz Werner                   Treaty, and Articles 1 and 11 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
Industrie-Ausrüstungen GmbH v. Federal Republic of                     No 2603/69 of 20 December 1969 establishing common
                              Germany ( J )                            rules for exports ( OJ English Special Edition 1969 ( II ),
(Common commercial policy — Export of dual-use                         p. 590 ), as amended by Council Regulation ( EEC )
                                goods)                                 No 3918/91 of 19 December 1991 ( OJ 1991 L372,p . 31 ) —
                           ( 95/C 315/08 )                             the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
                                                                       C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G.
                (Language of the case: German)                         Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A.
                                                                       Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann and H.
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Ragnemalm, Judges ; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; D.
                                                                       Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
In Case C-70/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of          Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 October 1995 in
the EC Treaty from the Verwaltungsgericht ( Administrative             which it rules that :
Court ) Frankfurt am Main for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Fritz Werner
                                                                       1 . Article 113 of the EC Treaty is to be interpreted as
Industrie-Ausrüstungen GmbH and the Federal Republic of
Germany — on the interpretation of Article 113 of the EC                    meaning that rules restricted exports of dual-use goods
                                                                            to non-member countries fall within the scope of that
Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward , J. -P. Puissochet
                                                                            Article and that in this matter the Community has
and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini ,
                                                                            exclusive competence, which therefore excludes the
                                                                            competence of the Member States save where the
F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G.
                                                                            Community grants them specific authorization;
Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann
and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau , Principal                      2 . Under Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC)
Adminstrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    No 2603/69 of20 December 1 969 establishing common
17 October 1995 , in which it rules that:                                   rules for exports, at last amended by Council Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 3918/91 of 19 December 1991 , a Member
Article 113 of the EC Treaty, and in particular Article 11 of               State may, exceptionally, adopt national measures
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69 of 20 December                          restricting the export of dual-use goods to non-member
1969 establishing common rules for exports, do not                          countries on the ground that this is necessary in order to
preclude national provisions applicable to trade with                       prevent the risk of a serious disturbance to its foreign
non-member countries under which the export of a product                    relations or to the peaceful coexistence of nations which
capable of being used for military purposes is subject to the               may affect the public security of a Member State within
issue ofa licence on the ground that this is necessary in order             the meaning of that article;
to avoid the risk of a serious disturbance to its foreign
relations which may affect the public security of a Member
State within the meaning of Article 11 of the Regulation.              3 . If there is a threat to public security, which is a matter
                                                                            for the national court to consider, an obligation on the
(') O J No C 90 , 26 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                            applicant to prove that the goods will be used
                                                                            exclusively for civil purposes or a refusal to issue a
                                                                            licence if the goods can objectively be used for military
                                                                            purposes can be consistent with the principle of
                                                                            proportionality;
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       of 17 October 1995                              4 . Community law does not preclude national authorities
in Case C-83/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the               from making breaches of the licensing procedure subject
Landgericht Darmstadt ): Criminal proceedings against                       to criminal penalties, provided that the penalties
                   Peter Leifer and Others ( l )                            applicable do not exceed what appears to be
                                                                            proportionate in relation to the public security aim
 (Common commercial policy — Export of dual-use                             pursued;
                                goods)
                            ( 95/C 315/09 )
                                                                        5 . Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69 confers on
                (Language of the case: German)                              individuals rights which they may assert before the
                                                                            courts .
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                      (') OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 .
 In Case C-83/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
 the EEC Treaty from the Landgericht ( Regional Court )


No C 159/20           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24 . 6 . 95
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                        Removal from the register of Case C-328/93 ( )
Circondariale di Biella by order of that court of 30 March                                      ( 95/C 159/41 )
1995 in the case of USSL 47 di Biella v. Istituto Nazionale
per l'Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro ( Inail )
                                                                     By order of 7 April 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                       ( Case C-134/95 )                             of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                         ( 95/C 159/39 )                             register of Case C-328/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                     from the Arbeitsgericht Munchen ): Carla Baeskow v.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the               Lebenshilfe für geistig Behinderte eV, Stadt- und Landkreis
European Communities by order of the Pretura                         Munchen .
Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Biella, of
30 March 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
on 24 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of           (M OJ No C 205 , 29 . 7. 1993 .
USSL 47 di Biella v. Istituto Nazionale per l'Assicurazione
contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro (Inail ) on the following
questions :
Is Article 1(1 ) of Law No 1369 of 23 October 1960, read in
conjunction with Article 11 ( 1 ) of Law No 264 of
29 October 1949 , compatible with the Community
principles laid down in Articles 48 , 49 , 54 and 90 of the EC              Removal from the register of Case C-402/93 ( )
Treaty and do those principles have direct effect, with the                                        95/C 159/42 )
result that the Italian legislation has to be set aside ?
                                                                     By order of 3 April 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                     of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                     register of Case C-402/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                  from the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Jutta Neumann v. Freie
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by              und Hansestadt Hamburg.
orders of that court of 26 October 1994 (C-135/95 ) and
27 February 1995 ( C-140/95 and C-141/95 ) in criminal               (^ OJ No C 286 , 22 . 10 . 1993 .
proceedings pending before it against Francesco Segna and
        Others, Cesare Cervetti and Mario Gasbarri
         (Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-141 /95 )
                          ( 95/C 159/40 )
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by orders of the Pretura
Circondariale di Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome                 Removal from the register of Case C-229/94 H
District Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division ) of 26 October
                                                                                ( 95/C 159/43 )
1994 ( C-135/95 ) and 27 February 1995 ( C-140/95 and
C-141 /95 ), which were received at the Court Registry on
24 April 1995 and 4 May 1995 respectively, for a                      By order of 5 May 1995 the President of the Court of Justice
preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings pending before it         of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
against Francesco Segna and Others, Cesare Cervetti and              register of Case C-229/34 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
Mario Gasbarri on questions identical with those referred in          from the High Court ( Queen's Bench Division)): The Queen
Cases C-112/95 , C-119/95 and C-123/95 ( M.                           v . Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                                                                      Gerard Adams ).
(M OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Case T-282/05: Action brought on 12 July 2005 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/32

         Action brought on 12 July 2005 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-282/05)
   (2005/C 229/69)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 July 2005 by Paulo Sequeira Wandschneider, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Chiara Ronzi, lawyers.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Career Development Report for the reference period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003;

               2.

               to the extent necessary, annul the decision rejecting the applicant's complaint brought on 2 December 2004;

               3.

               order the defendant to pay fair compensation for material and non-material suffered, estimated, subject to certification, at EUR 2 500;

               4.

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas and principal arguments relied on by the applicant are identical to those in Case T-110/04 Sequeira Wandschneider v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004, p. 86.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2005 in Case T-13/04: Jens-Peter Bonde and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Regulation on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding — Action for annulment — Objection as to admissibility — Challengeable act — Standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/20

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 11 July 2005
   in Case T-13/04: Jens-Peter Bonde and Others v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)

   (Regulation on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding - Action for annulment - Objection as to admissibility - Challengeable act - Standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 229/44)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-13/04: Jens-Peter Bonde, residing in Bagsværd (Denmark), Inger Schörling, residing in Gärle (Sweden), Paul-Marie Coûteaux, residing in Mirbeau (France), Nigel Paul Farage, residing in Westerham (United Kindgom), William Abitbol, residing in Paris (France), Bent Hindrup Andersen, residing in Horsens (Denmark), Graham H. Booth, residing in Paignton (United Kingdom), Florence Kuntz, residing in Lyons (France), Ulla Margrethe Sandbæk, residing in Birkerød (Denmark), Jeffrey William Titford, residing in Frinton-on-Sea (United Kingdom), Per Gahrton, residing in Täby (Sweden), Herman Schmid, residing in Copenhagen (Denmark), Jonas Sjöstedt, residing in Umeå (Sweden), Pernille Frahm, residing in Sdr Bjert (Denmark), Roger Helmer, residing in Lutterworth (United Kingdom), Daniel J. Hannan, residing in Great Bookham (United Kingdom), Georges Berthu, residing in Longré (France), Dominique F.C. Souchet, residing in Saint-Gemme la Plaine (France), Thierry de La Perrière, residing in Luc-sur-Mer (France), Hans Kronberger, residing in Vienna (Austria), Jean-Louis Bernie, residing in Nantes (France), Yves Butel, residing in Amiens (France), Ole Krarup, residing in Elsinore (Denmark), represented by J. Dhont, lawyer, against European Parliament (Agents: H. Krück, N. Lorenz and D. Moore, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims and I. Díez Parra) — application for annulment of Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding (OJ 2003 L 297, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 11 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004.


title: Case T-283/13 P: Appeal brought on 22 May 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 March 2013 in Case F-131/12 Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/52

         Appeal brought on 22 May 2013 by Luigi Marcuccio against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 March 2013 in Case F-131/12 Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-283/13 P)
   2013/C 207/85
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

               —

               Refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are same as those relied on in Case T-203/13 P Marcuccio v Commission.


title: Case T-274/12: Action brought on 15 June 2012 — Alfastar Benelux v Council

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/31

         Action brought on 15 June 2012 — Alfastar Benelux v Council
   (Case T-274/12)
   2012/C 243/55
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alfastar Benelux (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare and rule that the defendant has failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 266 TFEU, since, despite having been formally invited to do so, it failed to take any measure to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union issued on 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council and to define its position in that regard within the time limit set thereon;

               —

               Order the defendant to take all necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union issued on 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council and to define its position in that regard;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay to the applicant damages for the amount of EUR 20 000 based on Article 340 TFEU; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligation under Article 266 TFEU, since, despite having been formally invited to do so, it failed to take any measure to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union issued on 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council and to define its position in that regard within the time limit set thereon.


title: Case C-62/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2011 — Florence Feyerbacher v Land Hessen, represented by the Regierungspräsidium Gießen

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 10 February 2011 — Florence Feyerbacher v Land Hessen, represented by the Regierungspräsidium Gießen
   (Case C-62/11)
   2011/C 145/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hessisches Landessozialgericht, Darmstadt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Florence Feyerbacher

      Defendant: Land Hessen, represented by the Regierungspräsidium Gießen (Regional Administration, Gießen)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the Agreement of 18 September 1998 between the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the European Central Bank (ECB) on the Headquarters of the ECB (‘Headquarters Agreement’) part of European Union law which takes precedence over national law or does it constitute an international treaty?

               2.

               Must Article 15 of the Headquarters Agreement in conjunction with Article 36 of the Statute of the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) and the ECB be interpreted restrictively with the result that the applicability of German social security law conferring the benefit in question is excluded only where pursuant to the ‘Conditions of Employment’ the ECB confers a comparable social benefit on its staff?

         If Question 2 is answered in the negative:

               (a)

               Must the abovementioned provisions be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application of a national provision which grants family benefits only on the basis of the territorial principle?

               (b)

               Is the reasoning of the Court of Justice in Case C-352/06 Bosmann [2008] ECR I-3827, paragraphs 31 to 33, relevant to the application of the abovementioned provisions? Does Article 15 of the Headquarters Agreement in conjunction with Article 36 of the Statute of the ESCB and ECB not deprive the Federal Republic of Germany of the power to grant family benefits to employees of the ECB resident in Germany?


title: Case C-366/01: Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 331/12              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       24.11.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te                 Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-
’s-Hertogenbosch by order of 5 September 2001 in the                        mission of the European Communities against Ireland
case of H. Barbier against the decision of the head of the
section ‘non-resident individuals/undertakings’, Heerlen,                                            (Case C-366/01)
                of the national revenue service
                                                                                (2001/C 331/19)
                         (Case C-364/01)
                                                                         An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 24 September 2001
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                        (2001/C 331/18)                                  by Marie Wolfcarius, acting as agent, with an address for
                                                                         service in Luxembourg.
                                                                         The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         (1) declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of European                     Commission Directive 1999/48/EC(1) of 21 May 1999
Communities by order of 5 September 2001 by the Gerechts-                       adapting for the second time to technical progress
hof (District Court) ’s-Hertogenbosch which was received at                     Council Directive 96/49/EC on the approximation of the
the Court Registry on 24 September 2001, for a preliminary                      laws of the Member States with regard to the transport of
ruling in the case of H. Barbier against the decision of the head               dangerous goods by rail, or in any event by failing to
of the section ‘non-resident individuals/undertakings’, Heerlen,                inform the Commission of those measures, Ireland has
of the national revenue service on the following questions:                     failed to fulfil its obligations under this Directive,
                                                                         (2) order Ireland to pay the costs.
1.   Is cross-border economic activity at present a precon-
     dition of the application of Community law?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
2.   When a Member State imposes, on inheritance of immov-               Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
     able property situated in that Member State, a charge to            the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
     tax on the value of that property, does Community law               implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
     preclude it from allowing deduction of the value of the             period for compliance laid down in the Directive. That period
     liability to transfer the legal title to that property where        expired on 1 July 1999 without Ireland having enacted the
     the testator at the time of death was resident in that              provisions necessary to comply with the Directive referred to
     Member State but not where at the time of death he was              in the conclusions of the Commission.
     resident in another Member State?
                                                                         (1) OJ L 169, 5.7.1999, p. 58.
3.   Does it make any difference to the reply to be given to
     Question 2, whether at the time of acquisition of the
     immovable property the testator no longer resided in the
     Member State in which the property is situated?
                                                                         Action brought on 24 September 2001 by the Com-
                                                                         mission of the European Communities against the Hellen-
4.   Is the distribution of the testator’s capital as between the                                       ic Republic
     State in which the property is situated, the State of
     residence and any other States relevant to Question 2?
                                                                                (Case C-367/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/20)
5.   If so, in which State is a capital investment which is
     constituted by a claim under current-accounting arrange-
     ments on a limited company such as that described in
     paragraph 2.4 invested?                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 Sep-
                                                                         tember 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties, represented by Antonio Caeiros, legal Adviser, and Panos
                                                                         Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on secondment to its
                                                                         Legal Service.


title: Case C-386/16: Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Toridas’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 138(1) — Classification of a transaction as an intra-Community supply — Exemption of intra-Community supplies of goods — Intention of the person acquiring the goods to resell them to a taxable person in another Member State before they are taken out of the first Member State — Possible effect of some of the goods being processed before they are dispatched)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/13

         Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 26 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Toridas’ UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-386/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 138(1) - Classification of a transaction as an intra-Community supply - Exemption of intra-Community supplies of goods - Intention of the person acquiring the goods to resell them to a taxable person in another Member State before they are taken out of the first Member State - Possible effect of some of the goods being processed before they are dispatched))
   (2017/C 309/17)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘Toridas’ UAB

      Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Intervening party: Kauno apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 138(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a supply of goods by a taxable person established in a first Member State is not exempt from value added tax under that provision where, prior to entering into that supply transaction, the person acquiring the goods, who is identified for value added tax purposes in a second Member State, informs the supplier that the goods will be resold immediately to a taxable person established in a third Member State, before he takes them out of the first Member State and transports them to that third taxable person, provided that that second supply has in fact been carried out and the goods have then been transported from the first Member State to the Member State of the third taxable person. The fact that the first person acquiring the goods is identified for value added tax purposes in a Member State other than that of the place of the first supply or that of the place of the final acquisition is not a criterion for classification of an intra-Community transaction or, in itself, evidence sufficient to show that a transaction is an intra-Community one.

               2.

               For the purposes of interpreting Article 138(1) of Directive 2006/112, processing of the goods, in the course of a chain of two successive supplies, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, carried out on the instructions of the middleman acquiring the goods and before the goods are transported to the Member State of the person finally acquiring them, has no effect on the conditions for any exemption of the first supply where that processing takes place after the first supply.

      (1)  OJ C 343, 19.9.2016.


title: Case F-29/09 REV: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Lebedef and Jones v Commission (Civil service — Revision of a judgment — No new facts — Inadmissibility)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/49

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 13 April 2011 — Lebedef and Jones v Commission
   (Case F-29/09 REV)
   (Civil service - Revision of a judgment - No new facts - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 252/104
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) and Trevor Jones (Ernzen, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, Agents)

      Intervener: Council of the European Union (represented by: K. Zieleśkiewicz and M. Bauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Action by the applicants for revision of a judgment delivered by the Third Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal on 30 September 2010 in Case F-29/09

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders Mr. Lebedef and Mr. Jones to pay all the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union, the intervener, to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-122/12: Action brought on 19 March 2012 — ActionSportGames v OHIM

text:
               9.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/23

         Action brought on 19 March 2012 — ActionSportGames v OHIM
   (Case T-122/12)
   2012/C 165/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: ActionSportGames A/S (Humlebæk, Denmark) (represented by: W. Rebernik, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FN Herstal SA (Herstal, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the defendant’s decision of 12 January 2012 in Case R 2096/2010-1;

               —

               Uphold the decision of the Opposition Division of 24 September 2010 (Case No B 1 344 904);

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: ActionSportGames A/S

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SCAR’ for goods in Class 28 in Community trade mark application No 5 750 054.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: FN Herstal SA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The non-registered Belgian word mark ‘SCAR’ for goods in Classes 13 and 28.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and case referred back to that division.

      Pleas in law: The applicant claims that there is no likelihood of confusion between the disputed trade marks, since the goods at issue are fundamentally different because FN Herstal’s goods are made up of proper firearms for military use, whereas the applicant’s goods are replica and toy weapons for sport and play.


title: Case C-28/13 P: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2014  — Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP v European Central Bank (ECB) (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Content required in the application initiating an appeal)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/15

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 6 February 2014 — Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP v European Central Bank (ECB)
   (Case C-28/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Article 169(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Content required in the application initiating an appeal))
   2014/C 175/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellants: Gabi Thesing, Bloomberg Finance LP (represented by: M. Stephens and R. Lands, Solicitors, and by T. Pitt-Payne QC)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Central Bank (represented by: M. López Torres and S. Lambrinoc, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of 29 November 2012 in Case T-590/10 Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP v European Central Bank (ECB), by which the General Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed an action for annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank of 21 October 2010 refusing to grant the appellants access to two documents concerning public debt and the budgetary deficit

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Ms Gabi Thesing and Bloomberg Finance LP are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 6. 4. 2013.


title: Case T-262/10: Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/51

         Action brought on 7 June 2010 — Microban International and Microban (Europe) v Commission
   (Case T-262/10)
   ()
   2010/C 221/82
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Microban International Ltd. (Huntersville, United States) and Microban (Europe) Ltd. (Heath Hayes, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. S. Rydelski, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision No 2010/169 of 19 March 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of 2,4,4-’trichloro-2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether in the Union list of additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs under Directive 2002/72/EC (OJ 2010 L 75, p. 25); and

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of its application, the applicants seek, pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, the annulment of Commission Decision No 2010/169 of 19 March 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of 2,4,4-’trichloro-2’-hydroxydiphenyl ether in the Union list of additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs under Directive 2002/72/EC (1) (OJ 2010 L 75, p. 25), notified under document C(2010) 1613.
   In support of its submissions, the applicants put forward the following pleas in law:

               Firstly, that the contested Decision is not in accordance with the authorisation procedure under the framework Regulation (2) as it lacks an adequate legal basis for its adoption.

               Secondly, the Decision adopted by the defendant not to include the product concerned in the Union list of additives without a risk management decision, solely based on the withdrawal of the original application for authorisation, is in breach of the authorisation procedure for the product concerned.

               Thirdly, the defendant violated the applicants’ legitimate expectations by not providing for the opportunity to replace the original applicant for the product concerned.

               Finally, the procedure leading up to the contested Decision was not in compliance with general principles of EU law, such as the principles of sound administration, transparency and legal certainty.

      (1)  Commission Directive 2002/72/EC of 6 August 2002 relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs (OJ 2002 L 220, p. 18)

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC (OJ 2004 L 338, p. 4).


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 October 2004 in Case C-189/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Restrictions — Private security firms)

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 7 October 2004
   in Case C-189/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Restrictions - Private security firms)
   (2004/C 300/39)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   In Case C-189/03: Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 5 May 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Patakia and W. Wils) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H.G. Sevenster, C. Wissels and N.A.J. Bel) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting, in the framework of the Law on private security firms and detective agencies of 24 October 1997, provisions which require that:

                           —

                           undertakings that wish to provide services in the Netherlands and their managers must have a permit, without taking into account the obligations to which foreign service providers are already subject in the Member State where they are established, and by charging fees for this permit, and

                           —

                           members of the staff of these firms seconded from the Member State where they are established to work in the Netherlands have a proof of identity card issued by the Netherlands authorities, in so far as the checks to which cross-frontier providers of services are already subject in their Member State of origin are not taken into account for the requirement in question,

                     the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities. For the rest, each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.


title: Case T-95/12 P: Appeal brought on 28 February 2012 by Willem Stols against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2011 in Case F-51/08 RENV Stols v Council

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/22

         Appeal brought on 28 February 2012 by Willem Stols against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 December 2011 in Case F-51/08 RENV Stols v Council
   (Case T-95/12 P)
   2012/C 126/43
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Willem Stols (Halsteren, Netherlands) (represented by S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Declare the present appeal admissible;

               —

               Set aside the judgment of 13 December 2011 of the First Chamber of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union in Case F-51/08 RENV;

               —

               Grant the form of order submitted by him at first instance;

               —

               Order the Council to pay the costs of both sets of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on the following pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal, when it examined the first plea in law submitted at first instance claiming that Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union had been infringed and claiming a manifest error of assessment, infringed European Union law by:

                           —

                           using a criterion which was not provided for under Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations (see paragraphs 46 and 47 of the judgment under appeal);

                           —

                           providing inadequate reasoning for its judgment and calling into question the classification into two function groups provided for in Article 5 of the Staff Regulations (see paragraphs 52 to 54 of the judgment under appeal); and

                           —

                           providing reasoning which contained substantive inaccuracies and by misreading the language criterion referred to in Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations (see paragraphs 50 and 51 of the judgment under appeal)

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Civil Service Tribunal, when examining the second plea in law claiming infringement of Article 59(1) of the Staff Regulations and failure to observe the non-discrimination principle, reached a conclusion lacking all legal foundation, in so far as it rejected the second plea as ineffective because the first plea had not been established, whereas it made several errors of law in concluding that the first plea in law was not established (paragraphs 59 and 60 of the judgment under appeal).