title: Judgment of the Court of 27 September 2001 In Case C-257/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Divisional Court)]: The Queen v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte: Julius Barkoci et Marcel Malik (External relations — Association Agreement between the Community and the Czech Republic — Freedom of establishment — Czech nationals wishing to establish themselves in a Member State as self-employed workers)

text:
24.11.2001              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 331/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          recognised as having means that Czech nationals relying on it
                                                                                have the right to invoke it before the courts of the host Member
                                                                                State, notwithstanding the fact that the authorities of that State
                                                                                remain competent to apply to those nationals their own national
                      of 27 September 2001                                       laws and regulations regarding entry, stay and establishment,
                                                                                in accordance with Article 59(1) of that Agreement.
In Case C-257/99 [reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            2.   The right of establishment, as defined by Article 45(3) of that
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s
                                                                                Association Agreement, means that rights of entry and
Bench Division (Divisional Court)]: The Queen v Sec-
                                                                                residence, as corollaries of the right of establishment, are
retary of State for the Home Department ex parte: Julius
                                                                                conferred on Czech nationals wishing to pursue activities of an
                    Barkoci et Marcel Malik (1)
                                                                                industrial or commercial character, activities of craftsmen, or
                                                                                activities of the professions in a Member State. However, it
                                                                                follows from Article 59(1) of that Agreement that those rights
(External relations — Association Agreement between the                          of entry and residence are not absolute privileges, inasmuch as
Community and the Czech Republic — Freedom of establish-                         their exercise may, in some circumstances, be limited by the
ment — Czech nationals wishing to establish themselves in                        rules of the host Member State governing the entry, stay and
           a Member State as self-employed workers)                              establishment of Czech nationals.
                                                                            3.   Articles 45(3) and 59(1) of that Association Agreement, read
                          (2001/C 331/04)                                        together, do not in principle preclude a system of prior control
                                                                                which makes the issue by the competent immigration authorities
                                                                                of leave to enter subject to the condition that the applicant must
                                                                                show that he genuinely intends to take up an activity in a self-
                    (Language of the case: English)                              employed capacity without at the same time entering into
                                                                                employment or having recourse to public funds, and that he
                                                                                possesses, from the outset, sufficient financial resources and has
                                                                                reasonable chances of success. Substantive requirements such as
                                                                                those set out in paragraph 212 of the United Kingdom
                                                                                Immigration Rules (House of Commons Paper 395) have as
In Case C-257/99: reference to the Court under Article 234                       their very purpose to enable the competent authorities to carry
EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales,                          out such checks and are appropriate for achieving such a
Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court), for a preliminary                     purpose.
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home Department,
ex parte: Julius Barkoci et Marcel Malik — on the interpretation            4.   The condition set out at the end of the first sentence of
of Articles 45 and 59 of the Europe Agreement establishing                       Article 59(1) of that Association Agreement must be construed
an association between the European Communities and their                        as meaning that the obligation on a Czech national, prior to
Member States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic, of                       his departure to the host Member State, to obtain entry
the other part, concluded and approved on behalf of the                          clearance in his country of residence, grant of which is subject
Community by Decision 94/910/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the                            to verification of substantive requirements, such as those laid
Council and the Commission of 19 December 1994 (OJ 1994                          down in paragraph 212 of those Immigration Rules, has
L 360, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                           neither the purpose nor the effect of making it impossible or
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),                     excessively difficult for Czech nationals to exercise the rights
M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),                             granted to them by Article 45(3) of that Agreement, provided
D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen                that the competent authorities of the host Member State exercise
and F. Macken, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,                  their discretion in regard to applications for leave to enter
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                        for purposes of establishment, submitted pursuant to that
27 September 2001, in which it has ruled:                                        Agreement at the point of entry into that State, in such a way
                                                                                that leave to enter can be granted to a Czech national lacking
                                                                                entry clearance on a basis other than that of the Immigration
                                                                                Rules if that person’s application clearly and manifestly satisfies
1.    Article 45(3) of the Europe Agreement establishing an associ-              the same substantive requirements as those which would have
      ation between the European Communities and their Member                    been applied had he sought entry clearance in the Czech
      States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic, of the other              Republic.
      part, concluded and approved on behalf of the Community by
      Decision 94/910/ECSC, EC, Euratom of the Council and the
      Commission of 19 December 1994 must be construed as
      establishing, within the scope of application of that Agreement,      (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
      a precise and unconditional principle which is sufficiently
      operational to be applied by a national court and which is
      therefore capable of governing the legal position of individuals.
      The direct effect which that provision must therefore be


title: Case C-306/15: Order of the President of the Court of 15 January 2016 — European Commission v Romania

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/23

         Order of the President of the Court of 15 January 2016 — European Commission v Romania
   (Case C-306/15) (1)

   (2016/C 136/30)
   Language of the case: Romanian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 October 2002 in Case C-71/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Develop Baudurchführungs- und Stadtentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Capital duty — Contribution of assets of any kind — Meaning — Payments made by the parent company of a company which has acquired dividend certificates issued by a capital company)

text:
C 305/2                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          7.12.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     2.    Article 4(1)(c) of Directive 69/335, as amended by the
                                                                                abovementioned Act of Accession, is to be interpreted as
                                                                                meaning that the expression ‘contribution of assets of any kind’
                          (Sixth Chamber)                                         used therein covers additional payments which a new member
                                                                                makes not to the capital company which is increasing its capital,
                                                                                but to subsidiaries of that company, when it is clear from the
                        of 17 October 2002
                                                                                circumstances of the case that, from an economic point of view,
                                                                                the real recipient of those payments is that company.
in Case C-339/99 [Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)]: Energie Steier-                      3.    Payments made subject to the fulfilment of a condition precedent
mark Holding AG v Finanzlandesdirektion für Steier-                               amount to contributions within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c)
                                mark (1)                                          of Directive 69/335, as amended by the said Act of Accession,
                                                                                only after that condition has been fulfilled.
(Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of                    4.    Capital duty does not amount to a ‘liability’ or an ‘expense’
capital — Capital duty — Increase in a company’s capital                          within the meaning of Article 5(1)(a) of Directive 69/335, as
by the issue of new shares — Payments made upon the entry                         amended by the Act of Accession mentioned in paragraph 1 of
of a new member as a shareholder in the company —                                 the operative part of this judgment.
Payments made by the parent company of the new member
— Payments made to the subsidiaries of the company
       increasing its capital — Payments not yet made)                      (1 ) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                           (2002/C 305/02)
                    (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                                     (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 October 2002
In Case C-339/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234                  in Case C-71/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
EC by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary                the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Develop Baudurchführungs-
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                 und Stadtentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH v Finanzlandes-
Energie Steiermark Holding AG and Finanzlandesdirektion für                  direktion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland ( 1)
Steiermark, on the interpretation of Articles 4(1)(c) and 5(1)(a)
of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning                  (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of
indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special               capital — Capital duty — Contribution of assets of any kind
Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by the Act concerning                — Meaning — Payments made by the parent company of a
the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the                 company which has acquired dividend certificates issued by
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the                                                 a capital company)
adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is
founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the                                             (2002/C 305/03)
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), V. Skouris,
F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano,                                         (Language of the case: German)
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 October 2002,                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in which it has ruled:                                                                          in the European Court Reports)
1.    Article 4(1)(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July
      1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as          In Case C-71/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of          by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
      the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
      Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on              Develop Baudurchführungs- und Stadtentwicklungsgesell-
      which the European Union is founded, is to be interpreted as          schaft mbH and Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederöster-
      meaning that the expression ‘contribution of assets of any kind’      reich und Burgenland,on the interpretation of Article 4(1)(d)
      used therein covers the payments which a parent company               of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning
      makes to a capital company, which is increasing its capital by        indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special
      the issue of new shares, to enable the acquisition of those shares    Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), as amended by the Act concerning
      by a subsidiary of that parent company.                               the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the
 ---pagebreak--- 7.12.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 305/3
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the                       the proceedings pending before that court between Roquette
adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is                  Frères SA and Directeur général de la concurrence, de la
founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), the                  consommation et de la répression des fraudes; Third party:
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President             Commission of the European Communities, on the interpret-
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann,                      ation of Article 14 of Regulation No 17 of the Council of
F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano,                     6 February 1962: First Regulation implementing Articles 85
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962,
on 17 October 2002, in which it has ruled:                                  p. 87) and of the judgment in Joined Cases 46/87 and 227/88
                                                                            Hoechst v Commission [1989] ECR 2859, the Court, composed
                                                                            of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet,
Article 4(1)(d) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by the      M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
                                                                            C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur),
Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria,
the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the                   P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and
                                                                            J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;
adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded,
                                                                            L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
is to be interpreted as meaning that capital duty is chargeable on
payments made by a parent company to a capital company, which is            judgment on 22 October 2002, in which it has ruled:
increasing its assets by the issue of dividend certificates, in order to
enable the acquisition of such certificates by a subsidiary of that
parent company.
( 1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                            1.    In accordance with the general principle of Community law
                                                                                affording protection against arbitrary or disproportionate inter-
                                                                                vention by public authorities in the sphere of the private
                                                                                activities of any person, whether natural or legal, a national
                                                                                court having jurisdiction under domestic law to authorise entry
                                                                                upon and seizures at the premises of undertakings suspected of
                                                                                having infringed the competition rules is required to verify that
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           the coercive measures sought in pursuance of a request by the
                                                                                Commission for assistance under Article 14(6) of Regulation
                        of 22 October 2002                                        No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962: First Regulation
                                                                                implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty are not arbitrary
                                                                                or disproportionate to the subject-matter of the investigation
in Case C-94/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                          ordered. Without prejudice to any rules of domestic law
the Cour de cassation): Roquette Frères SA v Directeur                            governing the implementation of coercive measures, Community
général de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la                            law precludes review by the national court of the justification of
répression des fraudes, Third party: Commission of the                            those measures beyond what is required by the foregoing general
                    European Communities ( 1)                                     principle.
(Competition law — Article 14(3) and (6) of Regulation
No 17 — Commission decision ordering an investigation —
Provision of assistance by national authorities — Interpret-
ation of the judgment of 21 September 1989 in Hoechst v                     2.    Community law requires the Commission to ensure that the
Commission — General principles — Protection against                              national court in question has at its disposal all the information
arbitrary or disproportionate intervention by public auth-                        which it needs in order to carry out the review which it is
orities in the private activities of a legal person — Scope of                    required to undertake. In that regard, the information supplied
the review which a competent national court is required to                        by the Commission must in principle include:
carry out for the purposes of authorising coercive measures
against undertakings — Commission’s duty to provide
        information — Duty to cooperate in good faith)
                           (2002/C 305/04)                                        —     a description of the essential features of the suspected
                                                                                infringement, that is to say, at the very least, an indication
                     (Language of the case: French)                                     of the market thought to be affected and of the nature of
                                                                                the suspected restrictions of competition;
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                —     explanations concerning the manner in which the under-
In Case C-94/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                            taking at which the coercive measures are aimed is thought
by the Cour de Cassation (France) for a preliminary ruling in                           to be involved in the infringement in question;


title: Case T-557/10: Action brought on 3 December 2010 — H. Eich v OHIM — Arav (H. Eich)

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/56

         Action brought on 3 December 2010 — H. Eich v OHIM — Arav (H. Eich)
   (Case T-557/10)
   ()
   2011/C 30/98
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: H. Eich Srl (Signa, Italy) (represented by: D. Mainini, T. Rubin, A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli, G. Petrocchi, B. Passaretti, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Arav Holding Srl (Palma Campania, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010;

               —

               Declare valid the mark H. EICH referred to in registration application No 6 256 242;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of all proceedings, including before the two OHIM instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: H. Eich

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘H. Eich’ (registration application No 6 256 242), for goods in Classes 18 and 25;

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Arav Holding Srl

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘H-Silvian Heach’ (Italian mark No 976 125, and mark No 880 562, pursuant to the Protocol to the Madrid Agreement, for Benelux, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the United Kingdom), for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for registration.

      Pleas in law: Incorrect application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (no likelihood of confusion).


title: Case C-368/05 P: Appeal brought on  5 October 2005  by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group against the order made on  22 July 2005  by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-376/04 between Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/7

         Appeal brought on 5 October 2005 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group against the order made on 22 July 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-376/04 between Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-368/05 P)
   (2006/C 10/16)
   Language of the case: English
   An appeal against the order made on 22 July 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-376/04 between Polyelectrolyte Producers Group and Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 October 2005 by Polyelectrolyte Producers Group, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by Messrs Koen Van Maldegem and Claudio Mereu, avocats.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

               —

               set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 22 July 2005 in Case T-376/04;

               —

               declare the Appellant's requests in Case T-376/04 admissible;

               —

               rule on the merits or, in the alternative, refer the case to the Court of First Instance to rule on the merits; and

               —

               order the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities to bear all costs and expenses of both proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The Appellant submits that the Order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application as inadmissible should be set aside on the following grounds:

               (a)

               the Order infringes the Court's duty to state reasons;

               (b)

               the Court of First Instance has erred in its legal assessment of the facts of the case;

               (c)

               the Order infringes the right to complete and effective judicial protection, and the right to a fair hearing.


title: Case T-173/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014  — WeserWind v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/47

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — WeserWind v Commission
   (Case T-173/14)
   2014/C 142/60
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: WeserWind GmbH Offshore Construction Georgsmarienhütte (Bremerhaven, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision, in respect of State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, to initiate the formal procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, notified with the invitation to submit comments (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               Breach of essential procedural requirements

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the defendant failed to give sufficient reasons, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, for its decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. The decision to initiate the investigation procedure contains no specific substantive assessment based on factual and legal aspects with regard to the existence of all the constituent elements for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Infringement of the Treaties

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the Commission’s decision to initiate the investigation procedure infringes Article 107(1) TFEU. In this respect, the applicant states that the European Court of Justice has already held in Case C-397/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099 that the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources (‘EEG’) does not grant any aid. The EEG remains in force essentially unchanged. Particularly the essential aspects for the State aid assessment have remained unchanged. The same applies to the defendant’s decision of 22 May 2002 (OJ 2002 C 164, p. 5), in which the defendant stated that the EEG did not constitute aid.

                           —

                           The applicant further submits that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not fulfil the State aid conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU. In that regard, it submits, in particular, that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not constitute an advantage which a user would not have received under normal market conditions, that it is not selective, that it is not aid granted by a Member State or through State resources and that it does not result in a distortion of competition or in a possible effect upon trade between Member States.

               3.

               Compatibility with the common market

                           —

                           If the Court is of the opinion that State aid exists, that aid would, in the applicant’s view, be compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU.


title: Case T-113/17: Action brought on 20 Feburary 2017 — Crédit Agricole and Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/27

         Action brought on 20 Feburary 2017 — Crédit Agricole and Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v Commission
   (Case T-113/17)
   (2017/C 231/34)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Crédit Agricole SA (Montrouge, France) and Crédit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Montrouge) (represented by: J.-P. Tran Thiet, lawyer, M. Powell, Solicitor, J. Jourdan and J.-J. Lemonnier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   Principally:

               —

               annul Article 1(a) and, in consequence, Article 2(a) of the decision;

               —

               in any event, annul Article 2(a) of the decision.

         In the alternative:

               —

               significantly reduce the fine imposed on the applicants in the exercise of its unlimited jurisdiction in application of Article 261 TFEU and Article 31 of Regulation No 1/2003.

         Additionally:

               —

               annul the decisions of the Hearing Officer of 2 October 2014, 4 March 2015, 27 March 2015, 29 July 2015 and 19 September 2016 and, in consequence, annul Articles 1(a) and 2(a) of the decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   This action concerns the annulment in part of European Commission Decision C(2016) 8530 final of 7 December 2016 concerning a procedure in application of Article 101 TFEU in the case of Euro interest rate derivatives (AT.39914 — EIRD), imposing a fine of EUR 114 654 000 on the applicants and, in the alternative, a very significant reduction in that penalty.
   In support of the action, the applicants rely on 10 pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of the right of access to the courts and the adversarial principle.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the duty of impartiality and the presumption of innocence.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the contested decision does not establish the participation of the applicants in the manipulative practices alleged.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision incorrectly classifies the practices referred to as restrictions by object.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an error of law committed by the Commission in that it regarded all the practices as constituting a single infringement.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision failed to establish to the requisite legal standard that the applicants were aware of the overall plan or that they intended to participate therein.

               7.

               Seventh plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law, in that it classified the applicants’ alleged infringement as continuous, when, at most, it was repeated.

               8.

               Eighth plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is vitiated by an error of law, in that it attributed the practices of traders to the applicants.

               9.

               Ninth plea in law, alleging that the Commission imposed a fine in breach of the principle of equal treatment, the principle of sound administration, its obligation to state reasons, the rights of the defence and the principle of proportionality.

               10.

               Tenth plea in law, claiming that the General Court should reduce the amount of the fine, which is disproportionate having regard to the seriousness and duration of the practices.


title: Case T-470/12: Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Sothys Auriac v OHIM — Grand Hotel Primavera (BEAUTY GARDEN)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/51

         Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Sothys Auriac v OHIM — Grand Hotel Primavera (BEAUTY GARDEN)
   (Case T-470/12)
   2013/C 26/103
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Sothys Auriac (Auriac, France) (represented by: A. Berthet, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grand Hotel Primavera SA (Borgo Maggiore, Saint-Martin)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the present action to be admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 July 2012 on Case R 11419/2011-1;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: BEAUTY GARDEN for goods in Classes 3, 5, 29, 30 and 32 — Community trade mark No 3 456 134

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Grand Hotel Primavera SA

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: National figurative mark containing the word element ‘BEAUTY GARDEN’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal rejected in part and decision of the Cancellation Division annulled in part and revised by the Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(1) and Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009

               —

               Infringement of the general principle that reasons must be given in OHIM decisions and that the adversarial nature of proceedings must be observed.


title: Case T-113/06: Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Marine Harvest Norway and Alsaker Fjordbruk v Council (Dumping — Imports of salmon originating in Norway — Definition of the Community industry — Like product — Composition of the sample of Community producers)

text:
               5.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 133/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 March 2012 — Marine Harvest Norway and Alsaker Fjordbruk v Council
   (Case T-113/06) (1)

   (Dumping - Imports of salmon originating in Norway - Definition of the Community industry - Like product - Composition of the sample of Community producers)
   2012/C 133/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Marine Harvest Norway AS, successor in law to Fjord Seafood Norway AS (Bergen, Norway) and Alsaker Fjordbruk AS (Onarheim, Norway) (represented by: J.M. Juuhl-Langseth and P. Dyrberg, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix and B. Driessen, acting as Agents, and by G. Berrisch, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by P. Stancanelli and K. Talabér-Ritz, and subsequently by K. Talabér-Ritz, T. Scharf and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents, and by E. McGovern, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway (OJ 2006 L 15, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway in so far as it concerns Marine Harvest Norway AS, legal successor to Fjord Seafood Norway AS, for the anti-dumping duties applied to imports originating from the latter until 18 September 2007, and Alsaker Fjordbruk AS;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those of Marine Harvest Norway, legal successor to Fjord Seafood Norway, and Alsaker Fjordbruk;

               4.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Case T-332/07: Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Germany v Commission

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/53

         Action brought on 4 September 2007 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-332/07)
   (2007/C 269/96)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, Agent, and C. von Donat, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2007) 2619 final of 25 July 2007 reducing the European Regional Development Fund assistance granted by Decision C/1994/3379 for the single programming document for Community structural assistance in the Objective 2 regions of the Land North Rhine-Westphalia in the Federal Republic of Germany (EFRE No 94.02.13.012);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By the contested decision, the Commission reduced the assistance of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) for the programming for Community structural assistance in the Objective 2 regions of the Land North Rhine-Westphalia.
   In support of its claim, the applicant submits that the defendant wrongly assessed the facts in the contested decision.
   In addition, it has submitted that the conditions for a reduction pursuant to Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 (1) were not satisfied. In that regard, the applicant submits that the reallocation made would cause no significant change to the programme. In addition, it takes the view that the mere reference to the ‘guidelines for the financial closure of operational assistance (1994-1999) from the Structural Funds’ (SEC(1999) 1316) is not sufficient to show the significance of the change.
   Even if there were a significant change to the programme, the applicant submits that the Commission should have used its discretion under Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 with regard to the actual implementation of the programme. The applicant submits that the defendant should have assessed whether a reduction in the ERDF assistance was proportionate.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (OJ L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 1).


title: Case C-272/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 13 May 2003 in the proceedings between Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg and Jens Christian Siig, trading as "Internationale Transport" Export-Import

text:
6.9.2003                 EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 213/13
       value of the product/service, the size of the market for               a view to being transported subsequently by another road
       the product/service or the effect of a new national                    tractor to the consignee of the goods, who is established
       provision on use, which could be either a total prohibition            outside the customs territory of the Community?
       on use or prohibition or restriction within one of many
       possible areas of use?
                                                                              (1 ) OJ L 253 of 11.10.1993, p. 1.
( 1) of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of
     information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ
     L 109 of 26.04.1983, p. 8).
( 2) of 22 March 1988 amending Directive 83/189/EEC laying down
     a procedure for the provision of information in the field of
     technical standards and regulations (OJ L 81 of 26.03.1988,
     p. 75).
                                                                              Action brought on 25 June 2003 by the Commission
( 3) of 23 March 1994 materially amending for the second time
     Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision
                                                                              of the European Communities against the Portuguese
     of information in the field of technical standards and regulations                                      Republic
     (OJ L 100 of 19.04.1994, p. 30).
                                                                                (Case C-275/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/23)
                                                                              An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                              the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 June
                                                                              2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                              represented by António Caeiros and Klaus Wiedner, acting as
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                       Agents.
hof by order of that Court of 13 May 2003 in the
proceedings between Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg and
Jens Christian Siig, trading as ‘Internationale Transport’                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            Export-Import
                                                                              —     Declare that, by failing to transpose correctly and com-
                                                                                pletely Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December
                           (Case C-272/03)                                          1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions relating to the application of
                                                                                review procedures to the award of public supply and
                                                                                public works contracts (1), the Portuguese Republic has
                           (2003/C 213/22)                                          failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law;
                                                                              —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                          Pleas in law and main arguments
(Federal Finance Court) of 13 May 2003, received at the Court
Registry on 24 June 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Hauptzollamt Neubrandenburg and Jens                      Portuguese law as it stands makes the award of damages for
Christian Siig, trading as ‘Internationale Transport’ Export-                 infringements of Community law in the field of public
Import on the following question:                                             procurement or national rules implementing that law subject
                                                                              to proof, by the person harmed by the infringment, that the
                                                                              misconduct of the State or of the public body was culpably or
                                                                              maliciously intended by the relevant body or office holders or
Is Article 718(3)(d) in conjunction with Article 670(p) of                    administrative officials. Such evidence can be extremely diffi-
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 ( 1) to be interpreted as meaning                 cult or impossible to produce. The difficulty or impossibility
that that regulation prohibits the use of a road tractor                      of producing such evidence may result in persons harmed by
registered outside the customs territory of the Community to                  an infringement not obtaining the compensation to which
transport a semi-trailer from a place within the customs                      they are entitled. It is therefore clear that that obligation, not
territory of the Community, where the semi-trailer is loaded                  provided for by Directive 89/665, on persons who have
with goods, to another place within the customs territory of                  suffered damage is likely to undermine the effectiveness of
the Community, where the semi-trailer is merely parked with                   Article 2(1)(c) of that directive.


               29.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 357/4

         Action brought on 16 July 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-18/15)
   (2015/C 357/04)
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 16 July 2015 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Øyvind Bø and Marlene Lie Hakkebo, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, Rue Belliard 35, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Declare that by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 56 l of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement.

               2.

               Order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The application addresses the failure by Iceland to comply, no later than on 18 February 2015, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 18 December 2014 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order (Directive 2010/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on reporting formalities for ships arriving in and/or departing from ports of the Member States and repealing Directive 2002/6/EC), as referred to at point 56 l of Chapter V of Annex XIII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto (‘the Act’).

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case T-234/11 P-RENV-RX: Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2013 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB (Appeal — Civil service — Staff of the EIB — Review of the judgment of the General Court — Action at first instance dismissed as inadmissible — Pensions — Increase in the contribution to the pension scheme — Time-limit for bringing proceedings — Reasonable period)

text:
               24.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/8

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 July 2013 — Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB
   (Case T-234/11 P-RENV-RX) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Staff of the EIB - Review of the judgment of the General Court - Action at first instance dismissed as inadmissible - Pensions - Increase in the contribution to the pension scheme - Time-limit for bringing proceedings - Reasonable period)
   2013/C 245/10
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellants: Oscar Orlando Arango Jaramillo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and the 34 other appellants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: B. Cortese and C. Cortese, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: C. Gómez de la Cruz and T. Gilliams, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 February 2011 in Case F-34/10 Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB [2011] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the order of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 4 February 2011 in Case F-34/10 Arango Jaramillo and Others v EIB;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 211, 16.7.2011.


title: Case T-366/15 P: Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2016 — Todorova Androva v Council and Others (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Promotion — 2011 promotion procedure — Non-inclusion on the list of officials eligible for promotion — Action at first instance dismissed — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on fixed- term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Equal treatment — Obligation to state reasons — Burden of proof — Obligation on the court hearing the substantive application to investigate — Plea of illegality — Rule of correspondence between the complaint and the action before the EU Courts)

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2016 — Todorova Androva v Council and Others
   (Case T-366/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Promotion - 2011 promotion procedure - Non-inclusion on the list of officials eligible for promotion - Action at first instance dismissed - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - Clause 4 of the Framework Agreement on fixed- term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Equal treatment - Obligation to state reasons - Burden of proof - Obligation on the court hearing the substantive application to investigate - Plea of illegality - Rule of correspondence between the complaint and the action before the EU Courts))
   (2017/C 038/41)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Viara Todorova Androva (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium) (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and M. Veiga, acting as Agents); European Commission (represented by: initially, J. Currall, G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, and subsequently G. Gattinara and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents) and Court of Auditors (represented by: N. Scarfato, acting as Agent)

      Intervener in support of the Council of the European Union: European Parliament (represented by: D. Nessaf and M. Dean, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 29 April 2015, Todorova Androva v Council (F-78/12, EU:F:2015:37), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Ms Viara Todorova Androva to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the European Commission;

               3.

               Orders the European Parliament to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: Case T-137/09 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014  — Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark R 10 — Unregistered earlier national word mark R 10 — Assignment of the national trade mark — Proof of ownership of the earlier trade mark)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/25

         Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2014 — Nike International v OHIM — Muñoz Molina (R 10)
   (Case T-137/09 RENV) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark R 10 - Unregistered earlier national word mark R 10 - Assignment of the national trade mark - Proof of ownership of the earlier trade mark))
   2014/C 282/31
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Nike International Ltd (Beaverton, Oregon, United States) (represented by: M. de Justo Bailey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Aurelio Muñoz Molina (Petrer, Spain)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 January 2009 (Case R 551/2008-1), relating to opposition proceedings between DL Sports & Marketing Ltda and Aurelio Muñoz Molina.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Nike International Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) before the Court of Justice and the General Court.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION

text:
25 . 10 . 96       | EN |              Official Journal of the European Communities                          No C 316 / 15
                                                               III
                                                             (Notices)
                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
                                             NOTICE OF OPEN COMPETITION
                                                         (96/C 316/09)
             The Court of Justice of the European Communities and the General Secretariat of the
             European Parliament are publishing in the Official Journal of the European Communities No
             C 316A of 25 October 1996 the following open competition :
             English edition
             EUR/LA/ 109 — Conference interpreters
             French edition
             EUR/LA/ 109 — Conference interpreters
             German edition
             EUR/LA/ 109 — Conference interpreters
             Swedish edition
             EUR/LA/ 109 — Conference interpreters
             To obtain this Official Journal please contact the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
             the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
              The final date for receipt of applications is 28 November 1996.


title: COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

text:
19 . 10 . 95        [ EN ]             Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 274 / 11
                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                        (95 /C 274/ 11 )
Election of the President of the Court of First Instance              Second Chamber:
The Judges of the Court of First Instance, meeting on 1 8             Mr Kirschner, Président of Chamber, Mr Bellamy
September 1995, elected Judge Antonio Saggio as                       and Mr Kalogeropoulos, Judges,
President of the Court of First Instance, pursuant to
Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure, for the period from              Second Chamberi Extended Composition :
18 September 1995 to 31 August 1998 .                                 Mr Kirschner, Président of Chamber, Mr Vesterdorf,
                                                                      Mr Bellamy, Mr Kalogeropoulos, and Mr Potocki,
Appointment of the Registrar of the Court of First                    Judges ;
Instance
                                                                       Third Chamber:
At its meeting on 19 September 1995 the Court of First                Mr Briët, President of Chamber, Mr Vesterdorf and
Instance appointed Hans Jung as Registrar of the Court
of First Instance, pursuant to Article 20 in conjunction              Mr Potocki, Judges ;
with Article 7 (3) of the Rules of Procedure, for the                  Third Chamber, Extended Composition :
period from 27 September 1995 to 26 September 2001 .
                                                                      Mr Briët, Président of Chamber, Mr Vesterdorf, Mr
                                                                      Lenaerts, Ms Lindh and Mr Potocki, Judges,
Constitution of Chambers, designation of Presidents of
Chamber and assignment of Judges to Chambers                          Fourth Chamber:
At its meeting on 19 September 1995 the Court of First                Mr Barrington, President of Chamber, Mr Lenaerts
Instance adopted the following decisions :                            and Ms Lindh, Judges,
1 . Pursuant to Article 2 (4) of Council Decision                     Fourth Chamber; Extended Composition :
     88 / 591 / ECSC, EEC, Euratom of 24 October 1988
     and Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court              Mr Barrington, President of Chamber, Mr García-
     of First Instance establishes five Chambers of three             Valdecasas, Mr Lenaerts, Ms Lindh and Mr Azizi,
     Judges and five Chambers with an extended                        Judges ;
     composition of five Judges.
                                                                       Fifth Chamber:
2. The following are designated Presidents of Chambers
     for the period from 1 October 1995 to 30 September               Mr Schintgen, President of Chamber, Mr García-
     1996, pursuant to Article 15 of the Rules of                     Valdecasas and Mr Azizi, Judges,
     Procedure :
                                                                       Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition :
     — Judge Barrington,
                                                                       Mr Schintgen, President of Chamber, Mr García-
     — Judge Kirschner,                                                Valdecasas, Ms Tiili , Mr Azizi and Mr Moura-
                                                                       Ramos, Judges .
     — Judge Schintgen,
     — Judge Briët.                                               Until 30 September 1995, the Chambers constituted for
                                                                   the 1994/ 1995 judicial year shall continue to sit as
 3 . The Judges are assigned to the Chambers, pursuant to          currently constituted.
     Article 10 of the Rules of Procedure, for the period
     from 1 October 1995 to 30 September 1996 as                   Cases pending before the Chambers as currently
     follows :                                                     constituted shall be reassigned, with effect from
                                                                   1 October 1995, to the Chamber composed of the same
      First Chamber:                                               number of Judges of which the Judge-Rapporteur is a
                                                                   member with effect from that date. However, for cases
      Mr Saggio, President, Ms Tiili and Mr Moura-                 in which, before 1 October 1995 , the written procedure
      Ramos , Judges,                                              has been completed and a hearing in the oral procedure
                                                                   has been held, the Chamber which was sitting at the time
      First Chamber, Extended Composition :                        of the oral procedure shall continue to sit, with the same
      Mr Saggio, Président, Mr Bellamy, Mr Kalogero               composition, for the purposes of any continuation of the
      poulos, Ms Tiili and Mr Moura-Ramos, Judges ;                oral procedure, the deliberation and the judgment.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 274 / 12      ΓΕΝ ]              Official Journal of the European Communities                                    19 . 10 . 95
Criteria for assigning cases to Chambers                            (b) All other cases are to be assigned, with effect
                                                                         from the lodging of the application and without
                                                                         prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles
At its meeting on 19 September 1995 the Court of First                   14 and 51 of Rules of Procedure, to Chambers of
Instance laid down the following criteria for assigning                  three Judges .
cases to Chambers, pursuant to Article 12 of the Rules of
Procedure .                                                     2 . Cases referred to in paragraphs 1 (a) and 1 (b) are to
                                                                    be assigned to Chambers as follows :
1 , (a) Actions brought under the EC Treaty which                   — cases referred to in paragraph 1 (a) are to be
        concern the implementation of the competition                   assigned in turn , according to the order in which
        rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on the              they are registered at the Court Registry, to the
        control of concentrations, the rules concerning                 First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers ,
        State aid and the rules on trade protection                     Extended Composition ;
        measures, together with actions brought under the
        ECSC and Euratom Treaties , are to be assigned ,            — cases referred to in paragraph 1 (b) are to be
        with effect from the lodging of the application                 assigned to the First, Second, Third, Fourth and
        and without prejudice to any subsequent                         Fifth Chambers . Such assignment is to be effected
        application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of               on the basis of two separate lists , of staff cases and
        Procedure ,   to  Chambers with      an   extended              other cases respectively, according to the order in
        composition of five Judges .                                    which they are registered at the Court Registry.


title: Case C-408/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 July 2017 — Enel Energia SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza ed del Mercato and Others

text:
               9.10.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 338/7

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy) lodged on 6 July 2017 — Enel Energia SpA v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza ed del Mercato and Others
   (Case C-408/17)
   (2017/C 338/07)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Enel Energia SpA

      Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza ed del Mercato, Autorità per l’Energia Elettrica il Gas e il Sistema Idirco, Autorità per le Garanzie nelle Comunicazioni

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the ‘rationale’ of ‘general’ Directive No 2005/29/EC, (1) namely that of providing a ‘safety net’ for consumer protection, and, in particular, recital 10, Article 3(4) and Article 5(3) of the directive preclude a national measure which brings within the scope of general Directive 2005/29/EC on improper commercial practices the evaluation of performance of the specific obligations laid down by sectoral Directives 2009/72/EC (2) and 2009/73/EC (3) for consumer protection, thereby excluding action by the sectoral authority — in this case the AEEGSI — to penalise infringements of the sectoral directive in all cases in which the prerequisites establishing an improper or unfair commercial practice may also be satisfied?

               2.

               Must the speciality principle established by Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be construed as governing relations between legislative systems (general systems and sectoral systems), or relations between provisions (general provisions and special provisions) or relations between independent authorities responsible for regulating and monitoring the relevant sectors?

               3.

               Can the concept of ‘conflict’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC be regarded as applicable only in circumstances in which there is a radical contradiction in law between the provisions of the legislation on improper commercial practices and the other provisions derived from EU law that govern specific aspects of commercial practices, or is it sufficient that the latter provisions lay down rules that differ from the provisions on improper commercial practices, such as to give rise to a conflict of laws in a specific case?

               4.

               Does the term ‘Community rules’ in Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC relate solely to the provisions contained in European regulations and directives and to the provisions directly transposing them, or does it also encompass the legislative and regulatory provisions implementing principles of EU law?

               5.

               Does the ‘speciality’ principle established in recital 10 and Article 3(4) of Directive 2005/29/EC, and Article 37 of Directive 2009/72/EC and Article 41 of Directive 2009/73/EC as well, preclude an interpretation of the corresponding national transposing provisions to the effect that, whenever, in a regulated sector containing sectoral ‘consumer’ rules, in which the sectoral authority is empowered to regulate and impose penalties, conduct that could be covered by the term ‘aggressive practice’ within the meaning of Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC, or the term ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ within the meaning of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC, is identified, the general rules on improper practices must always apply, even where there are sectoral rules adopted to protect (such) consumers and based on provisions of EU law that fully regulate those same ‘aggressive practices’ and practices ‘in all circumstances considered aggressive’ or, at any rate, those same ‘improper/unfair practices’?

      (1)  Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2006 concerning unfair business — to — consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘unfair commercial practices directives’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22).

      (2)  Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55).

      (3)  Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC (OJ 2009 L 211, p. 94).


title: Case C-252/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), Divisional Court, by order of that court of 20 May 2005 in The Queen on the application of Thames Water Utilities Ltd v South East London Division, Bromley Magistrates' Court, Intervener: The Environment Agency

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), Divisional Court, by order of that court of 20 May 2005 in The Queen on the application of Thames Water Utilities Ltd v South East London Division, Bromley Magistrates' Court, Intervener: The Environment Agency
   (Case C-252/05)
   (2005/C 205/20)
   Language of the case: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), Divisional Court, of 20 May 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between The Queen on the application of Thames Water Utilities Ltd and South East London Division, Bromley Magistrates' Court, Intervener: Environment Agency, on the following question:

               1.

               Whether sewage which escapes from a sewerage network maintained by a statutory sewerage undertaker pursuant to the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC (1) (‘UWWTD’) and/or the Water Industry Act 1991 (‘WIA 1991’), amounts to ‘directive waste’ for the purposes of the Directive 75/442/EEC (2) (as amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (3)) (‘the Waste Framework Directive’ hereinafter, the ‘WFD’).

               2.

               If the answer to (1) is in the affirmative, whether the aforesaid sewage:

                           (a)

                           is excluded from the scope of ‘directive waste’ under the WFD by virtue of article 2(1)(b)(iv) of the WFD, in particular, by virtue of the UWWTD and/or the WIA 1991; or,

                           (b)

                           comes within article 2(2) of the WFD and is excluded from the scope of ‘directive waste’ under the WFD, in particular, by virtue of the UWWTD.

      (1)  Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, OJ L 135, 30.05.1991, p. 40.

      (2)  Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, OJ L 194, 25.07.1975, p. 39.

      (3)  Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, OJ L 78, 26.03.1991, p. 32.


24.10.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                               C 327/17
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      Removal from the register of Case C-334/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 327/28)
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the          By order of 23 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid            Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
down in the directive. That period expired on 1 September          removal from the register of Case C-334/96 (reference
1995 without Ireland having enacted the provisions                 for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht,
necessary to comply with the directive referred to in the          Düsseldorf): Stadt Dormagen v Bezirksregierung
conclusions of the Commission.                                     Düsseldorf.
(1) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 1.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-123/97 (1)
                         (98/C 327/27)                                   Removal from the register of Case C-357/97 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 327/29)
By order of 17 July 1998 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-123/97 (reference for          By order of 24 August 1998 the President of the Court of
a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di             Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Padova): Tommaso Nalon v Ente Poste Italiane.                      removal from the register of Case C-357/97: Commission
                                                                   of the European Communities v Ireland.
(1) OJ C 166, 31.5.1997.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   Election of the President of the Court of First Instance            Ð Mr Cooke,
                         (98/C 327/30)
                                                                       Ð Mr Jaeger.
At their meeting on 17 September 1998 the Judges of the
Court of First Instance elected, pursuant to Article 7 of
the Rules of Procedure, Judge Bo Vesterdorf as President           B. to assign the Members of the Court of First Instance
of the Court of First Instance for the period from                     to the Chambers as follows:
17 September 1998 to 31 August 2001.
                                                                       to the First Chamber:
                                                                       Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Pirrung and Mr Vilaras,
Designation of the Presidents of Chamber, and the                      Judges;
                composition of the Chambers
                         (98/C 327/31)
                                                                       to the First Chamber, Extended Composition:
At its meeting on 21 September 1998, the Court of First
Instance decided, pursuant to Article 2(4) of the Council
Decision of 24 October 1988 and Articles 10 and 15 of                  Mr Vesterdorf (President), Mr Bellamy, Mr Pirrung,
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in              Mr Meij and Mr Vilaras, Judges;
respect of the period between 21 September 1998 and
30 September 1999:
                                                                       to the Second Chamber:
A. to designate as Presidents of Chamber:
    Ð Mr Potocki,
                                                                       Mr Potocki (President of Chamber), Mr Bellamy and
    Ð Mr Moura Ramos,                                                  Mr Meij, Judges;


title: Case C-29/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel — Luxembourg) — Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations — Contract of employment — Choice made by the parties — Mandatory rules of the law applicable in the absence of choice — Determination of that law — Notion of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’ — Employee carrying out his work in more than one Contracting State)

text:
               7.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 139/9

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 15 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel — Luxembourg) — Heiko Koelzsch v État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg
   (Case C-29/10) (1)

   (Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations - Contract of employment - Choice made by the parties - Mandatory rules of the law applicable in the absence of choice - Determination of that law - Notion of the country in which the employee ‘habitually carries out his work’ - Employee carrying out his work in more than one Contracting State)
   2011/C 139/14
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heiko Koelzsch

      Defendant: État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d’appel — Interpretation of Article 6(2)(a) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980 (OJ 1980 L 266, p. 1) — Determination of the law applicable to an action for wrongful dismissal in the absence of a choice by the parties to an individual employment contract — Concept of place‘in which the employee habitually carries out his work’ — Employee working in more than one country but returning systematically to one of them

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(2)(a) of the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19 June 1980, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation in which an employee carries out his activities in more than one Contracting State, the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work in performance of the contract, within the meaning of that provision, is that in which or from which, in the light of all the factors which characterise that activity, the employee performs the greater part of his obligations towards his employer.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 27.3.2010.


title: Case C-84/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2010 — Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Merck KGaA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Word sign ‘Kids Vits’ — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark VITS4KIDS — Level of attention of the relevant public — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the signs — Right to be heard)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/9

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 22 October 2010 — Longevity Health Products, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Merck KGaA
   (Case C-84/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Word sign ‘Kids Vits’ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark VITS4KIDS - Level of attention of the relevant public - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Right to be heard)
   2011/C 80/16
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Longevity Health Products, Inc. (represented by: J. E. Korab, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, Agent), Merck KGaA

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 9 December 2009 in Case T-484/08 Longevity Health Products v OHIM — Merck (Kids Vits) in which the General Court dismissed the action against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 August 2008, refusing the registration of the word sign ‘Kids Vits’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 5, by upholding the opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark ‘VITS4KIDS’ — Infringement of the right to a judicial hearing — Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion between two marks

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Longevity Health Products, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.04.2010.


title: Joined Cases C-474/09 P to C-476/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2011 — Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (C-474/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava (C-475/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (C-476/09 P) v European Commission, Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco, Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) (Appeal — State aid — Actions for annulment — Decisions of the Commission concerning the State aid schemes implemented by Spain in favour of undertakings in the provinces of Vizcaya, Álava and Guipúzcoa — Reductions in the tax base for certain newly-created undertakings — Legitimate expectations — Principles of legal certainty and sound administration — Compliance with a reasonable time-limit — Lack of notification)

text:
               8.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 298/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 July 2011 — Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (C-474/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava (C-475/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (C-476/09 P) v European Commission, Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco, Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask)
   (Joined Cases C-474/09 P to C-476/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Actions for annulment - Decisions of the Commission concerning the State aid schemes implemented by Spain in favour of undertakings in the provinces of Vizcaya, Álava and Guipúzcoa - Reductions in the tax base for certain newly-created undertakings - Legitimate expectations - Principles of legal certainty and sound administration - Compliance with a reasonable time-limit - Lack of notification)
   2011/C 298/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (C-474/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava (C-475/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (C-476/09 P) (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agents), Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, abogados), Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja (represented by: J.M. Criado Gámez and M. Martínez Aguirre, abogados), Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, abogados), Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask)

      Intervener in support of the appellants: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) of 9 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-227/01 to T-229/01 and T-265/01, T-266/01 and T-270/01 Diputación Foral de Álava and Gobierno Vasco and Others v Commission, by which the Court dismissed, in Cases T-227/01 and T-265/01 an application to annul Commission Decision 2002/802/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Álava in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (OJ 2002 L 296, p. 1), in Cases T-228/01 and T-266/01 an application to annul Commission Decision 2003/27/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Vizcaya in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (OJ 2003 L 17, p. 1), and in Cases T-229/01 and T-270/01, an application to annul Commission Decision 2002/894/EC of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme implemented by Spain for firms in Guipúzcoa in the form of a tax credit amounting to 45 % of investments (OJ 2002 L 314, p. 26).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the principal appeals and the subsidiary appeals;

               2.

               Orders Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava, Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Vizcaya, Cámara Oficial de Comercio e Industria de Álava, Cámara Oficial de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Guipúzcoa each to pay an equal share of the costs of the present appeals;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case C-572/15: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v Accord Healthcare OÜ (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Industrial and commercial property — Patent — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 — Article 21(2) — Transitional provisions — Certificate granted in accordance with the national legislation of a Member State prior to its accession to the European Union — Interpretation of Article 21(2) — Duration of validity of the certificate — Validity of Article 21(2) — Adjustment to secondary legislation resulting directly from the Act of Accession — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               28.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 441/5

      Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 5 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Riigikohus — Estonia) — F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v Accord Healthcare OÜ
      (Case C-572/15) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Industrial and commercial property - Patent - Supplementary protection certificate - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 21(2) - Transitional provisions - Certificate granted in accordance with the national legislation of a Member State prior to its accession to the European Union - Interpretation of Article 21(2) - Duration of validity of the certificate - Validity of Article 21(2) - Adjustment to secondary legislation resulting directly from the Act of Accession - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court))
      (2016/C 441/06)
      Language of the case: Estonian

         Referring court

      Riigikohus

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG

         Defendant: Accord Healthcare OÜ

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The Court of Justice of the European Union does not have jurisdiction to rule on the validity of Article 21(2) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 concerning the supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community.

                  2.

                  Article 21(2) of Regulation No 469/2009, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to a supplementary protection certificate, relating to a given medicinal product, granted by a Member State prior to its accession to the European Union. To the extent that that medicinal product was the subject, within the European Economic Area, of a marketing authorisation before that granted in that Member State, and, as the case may be, before its accession to the European Union, only the first marketing authorisation must be taken into account for the purposes of determining the duration of validity of the supplementary protection certificate.

         (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-71/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 9 February 2017 — David Vicente Fernandes v Gabinete Português de Carta Verde

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Portugal) lodged on 9 February 2017 — David Vicente Fernandes v Gabinete Português de Carta Verde
   (Case C-71/17)
   (2017/C 129/07)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: David Vicente Fernandes

      Defendant: Gabinete Português de Carta Verde

      Questions referred

               A.

               Does insurance taken out in Luxembourg produce legal effects in Portugal in the same way as if the corresponding policy had been issued in Portugal?

               B.

               Is the Gabinete Português de Carta Verde the compensation body referred to in Article 24(1) of Directive 2009/103/EC (1) and, as the body responsible for compensating the injured parties in the cases referred to in Article 20(1) of the Directive, is it accountable in the same way as the Luxembourg insurance company?

               C.

               In the present case, is it sufficient to sue the compensation body or is it also necessary to sue the insurance company? In the latter case, can the insurance company be sued at its headquarters in Luxembourg or must the action be brought against its representative in Portugal?

               D.

               In the event that the insurance company does not have a representative in Portugal, who should be sued so that full compensation is paid, where there is an unlimited civil liability insurance policy?

      (1)  Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability — OJ 2009 L 263, p. 11.


title: Case C-459/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz (Österreich) lodged on 9 October 2007 — Veli Elshani v Hauptzollamt Linz

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz (Österreich) lodged on 9 October 2007 — Veli Elshani v Hauptzollamt Linz
   (Case C-459/07)
   (2007/C 297/49)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Graz
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Veli Elshani

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Linz
   Questions referred

               1.

               The criterion for extinction laid down in point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (1) establishing the Community Customs Code (‘the Customs Code’) does not refer to the time at which the customs debt is incurred but to a time after the customs debt is incurred, because it presupposes a customs debt ‘incurred’ in accordance with Article 202 of the Customs Code.
               Is the expression ‘upon their unlawful introduction’ within the meaning of point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that:

                           —

                           the introduction into the customs territory of the Community of goods in respect of which a customs debt is incurred in accordance with Article 202 of the Customs Code ends when they are introduced at the border customs office or at any other place designated by the customs authorities, but at the latest when they leave the premises of the border customs office or of the otherwise designated place, because the goods have thus entered the customs territory, with the result that seizure and confiscation of the goods after that time no longer results in the extinction of the customs debt,
                           or as meaning that:

                           —

                           the introduction into the customs territory of the Community of goods in respect of which a customs debt is incurred in accordance with Article 202 of the Customs Code continues, adopting an economic approach, for as long as their transport continues as a single process following the introduction of the goods into the customs territory, and the goods in the customs territory have not yet therefore reached their first destination and come to rest there, with the result that seizure and confiscation of the goods up to that time results in the extinction of the customs debt?

               2.

               In the event of unlawful conduct for the purposes of Article 202 of the Customs Code which is discovered upon introduction, the customs debt must be extinguished. By contrast, seizure of goods directly upon their being removed from customs supervision, as unlawful conduct for the purposes of Article 203 of the Customs Code, results in no immediate extinction of the customs debt.
               Is point (d) of the first paragraph of Article 233 of the Customs Code to be interpreted as meaning that this extinction of the customs debt, which is restricted expressly to cases where the customs debt is incurred in accordance with Article 202 of the Customs Code, is nevertheless consistent with the principle of equal treatment of unlawful conduct?

      (1)  OJ L 302, p. 1.