title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Travail de Tournai (Fourth Chamber) by judgment of that court of 14 February 1995 in the case of Institut National d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants against Hans Kemmler (Case C-53/95)

text:
22 . 4 . 95          lEN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 101 /3
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie               Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords, by
by judgment of that court of 10 February 1995 in the case of             order of that court of 9 February 1995 , in the case of Regina
          Belgian State against Ghent Coal Terminal                      against Secretary of State for the Environment, ex-parte:
                           ( Case C-37/95 )                                          Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
                             ( 95/C 101 /05 )                                                       ( Case C-44/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/07)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Hof van                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Cassatie ( Court of Cassation ), Belgium, of 10 February                 European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
1995 , which was received at the Court Registry on                       of 9 February 1995 , which was received at the Court
16 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               Registry on 24 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
Belgian State against Ghent Coal Terminal on the following               the case of Regina against Secretary of State for the
question:
                                                                         Environment, ex-parte : Royal Society for the Protection of
                                                                         Birds, on the following questions :
Does Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May                 1,    is a Member State entitled to take account of the
1 977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States                    considerations mentioned in Article 2 of Council
relating to turnover taxes ( a ) mean that the right to deduct                 Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
remains in existence for value added tax on investments                        conservation of wild birds ( a ) in classification of an area
which were originally intended for use in the undertaking                      as a Special Protection Area and/or in defining the
but were never in fact put into use by the undertaking ?                       boundaries of such an area pursuant to Article 4 ( 1 )
                                                                               and/or 4 ( 2 ) of that Directive ?
f 1 ) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                         2 . If the answer to question 1 is 'no', may a Member State
                                                                               nevertheless take account of Article 2 considerations in
                                                                               the classification process in so far as:
                                                                               (a ) they amount to a general interest which is superior
                                                                                to the general interest which is repersented by the
                                                                                ecological objective of the Directive ( i.e. the test
                                                                                which the European Court has laid down in e.g.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                          Commission v. Germany ('Leybucht Dykes') Case
Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 30 January                               57/89 for derogation from the requirements of
        1995 in the case of Siemens AG v. Henry Nold                                 Article 4 (4 )); or
                           ( Case C-42/95 )
                             ( 95/C 101/06 )                                   ( b ) they amount to imperative reasons of overriding
                                                                                public interest such as might be taken into account
                                                                                under Article 6 (4 ) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC
                                                                                of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                               habitats and of wild fauna and flora ( 2 ).
European Communities by an order of the Second Civil
Senate of the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court ofJustice ) of
30 January 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry               t 1 ) OJ No L 103 , 25 . 4 . 1979 , p . 1 .
on 23 February 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of            ( 2 ) OJ No L 206 , 22 . 7. 1992 , p . 7.
Siemens AG v. Henry Nold, on the following question:
Is it compatible with the Second Council Directive of
13 December 1976 i 1 ), in particular Article 29 ( 1 ) and (4 )
thereof, for the legality of a resolution of a general meeting
of shareholders relating to an increase in capital in return for         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de
contributions in kind while at the same withdrawing the                  Travail de Tournai (Fourth Chamber) by judgment of that
shareholders ' right of pre-emption to be determined on the              court of 14 February 1995 in the case of Institut National
basis of a substantive review in accordance with the                     d'Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants
principles laid down in the Bundesgerichtshof's judgments                                      against Hans Kemmler
BGHZ 71 , 40 and BGHZ 83 , 319 ?
                                                                                Case C-53/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 101/08 )
(!) OJ No L 26 , 31 . 1 . 1977, p . 1 .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
                                                                         Travail de Tournai ( Labour Court, Tournai, Belgium)
 ---pagebreak--- No C 101 /4             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 4 . 95
( Fourth Chamber ) of 14 February 1995 , which was received             Action brought on 4 March 1995 by the French Republic
at the Court Registry on 1 March 1995 , for a preliminary                  aginst the Commission of the European Communities
ruling in the case of Institut National d'Assurances Sociales                                   (Case C-57/95 )
pour Travailleurs Indépendants against Hans Kemmler on
the following question:                                                                          ( 95/C 101/10 )
is the effect of Articles 48 , 51 , 52 and 59 of the Treaty of          An action against the Commission of the European
Rome that before 1 July 1982 a Member State ( in this case              Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
Belgium) could not require nationals of another Member                  European Communities on 4 March 1995 by the French
State (in this case the former Federal Republic of Germany)             Republic, represented by Edwige Belliard and Claude
who were pursuing the same independent occupation both                  Chavance, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
in its territory and in the former Federal Republic of                  Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 9 Boulevard Prince
                                                                        Henri .
Germany, where they were resident and subject to the social
security scheme, to pay contributions to the Belgian social
security scheme for independent occupations, having regard              The applicant claims that the Court should :
to the fact that such contributions could not entitle them to
any additional social security cover ?                                  — declare null and void the Commission communication
                                                                            94/C 360/08 on the freedom of management and
                                                                            investment of funds held by institutions for retirement
                                                                            provisions O ,
                                                                        — order the defendant to pay the costs of the
Action brought on 2 March 1995 by the Commission of the                     proceedings .
     European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
                           ( Case C-55/95 )                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 95/C 101/09 )
                                                                        Admissibility of the application
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before               The French Government requests the Court of Justice to
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                     examine the contested communication in the light of
2 March 1995 by the Commission of the European                          its settled case-law, according to which, an action for
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal                 annulment lies against all measures, whatever their nature
Adviser, and Blanca Rodriguez Galindo, of the Legal                     and form, adopted by the institutions and intended to
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the               produce legal effects .
office of Giorgios Kremlis, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                        Lack of competence of the Commission, infringement of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Article 190 of the EC Treaty and of the principle of legal
                                                                        certainty
1 . declare that the Kingdom of Spain, by not adopting the
      necessary measures for compliance with Article 3 et seq.          The French Government considers that, by adopting the
      of Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990              communication in question, the Commission has exceeded
      on the approximation of the laws of the Member States             its powers .
      relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of
      the use of motor vehicles (*) has not fulfilled its               The contested act, in so far as it imposes new obligations on
      obligations under that directive;                                 the Member States, should have been founded on a specific
                                                                        legal basis . The ambiguity concerning the actual scope of the
2, order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                        obligations it lays down is contrary to the principle of legal
                                                                        certainty.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Content of the aet
The binding nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
of Article 189 and first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC               The French Government notes that the contested act would
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the necessary                    have the effect of imposing on the Member States, in an
measures to adapt its domestic law to directives within the             unequivocally mandatory manner, objectives and new legal
period indicated for implementation and to communicate                  obligations as regards supervision of pension funds. Such
such measures forthwith to the Commission. That period,                 obligations would logically constrain certain Member States
laid down by Article 6 of the Directive, expired on                     to amend their internal legislation in force, which would be
31 December 1992 without Spain having adopted the                       an unexpected outcome of an act which, in principle, lacks
necessary provisions .                                                  any legal status.
f 1 ) OJ No L 129 , 19 . 5 . 1990 , p . 33 .                            (») OJ No C 360, 17. 12 . 1994, p . 7.


title: Case T-338/16 P: Appeal brought on 22 June 2016 by Richard Zink against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 April 2016 in Case F-77/15, Zink v Commission

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/46

         Appeal brought on 22 June 2016 by Richard Zink against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 11 April 2016 in Case F-77/15, Zink v Commission
   (Case T-338/16 P)
   (2016/C 305/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Richard Zink (Bamako, Mali) (represented by N. de Montigny and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 11 April 2016 in Case F-77/15 (Zink v Commission);

               —

               annul the decision of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) to limit the payment of the expatriation allowance, which had been wrongly omitted since 1 September 2007, to a period of five years;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the expatriation allowances that he has been entitled to since 1 September 2007 plus default interest calculated at the rate laid down by the European Central Bank for its main refinancing operations, increased by two percentage points on the sums already paid to the applicant by way of arrears of remuneration (expatriation allowance) and on those sums still due, from their respective due date until full payment, subject to the deduction of the sums already paid;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the two instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 62 of the Statute.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of the legality of acts of the Commission.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of the limitation to five years of the arrears.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the obligation to state reasons.


title: Case T-552/14: Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra) (Community trade mark — Application for Community figurative mark Extra — Absolute grounds for refusal — No distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/45

         Order of the General Court of 24 June 2015 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Extra)
   (Case T-552/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Application for Community figurative mark Extra - Absolute grounds for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))
   (2015/C 311/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 May 2014 (Case R 199/2014-5) relating to an application for registration of the figurative sign Extra as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case F-114/06: Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Liotti v Commission

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/50

         Action brought on 29 September 2006 — Liotti v Commission
   (Case F-114/06)
   (2006/C 281/89)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Amerigo Liotti (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the list of officials promoted in the 2005 promotion procedure, in so far as that list does not include the applicant's name, and also, by way of an incidental measure, the preparatory measures for those decisions;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the allocation of promotion points in the abovementioned promotion procedure, in particular, following the recommendations of the Promotion Committees;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application, the applicant relies on the seven following pleas in law:

               —

               first, infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               second, infringement of the general implementing provisions for that article;

               —

               third, infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, and a manifest error of assessment;

               —

               fourth, infringement of the principles of prohibition of arbitrary procedures and of abuse of powers, and also infringement of the duty to state reasons;

               —

               fifth, infringement of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations, and of the rule ‘Patere legem quam ipse fecisti’ (obey the rules which you yourself have made);

               —

               seventh, infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials.


title: Case C-533/12 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2012 by the Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France SAS v European Commission

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/7

         Appeal brought on 22 November 2012 by the Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA against the judgment delivered by the General Court (Fourth Chamber) on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France SAS v European Commission
   (Case C-533/12 P)
   2013/C 32/09
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Société nationale maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) SA (represented by: A. Winckler and F.-C. Laprévote, lawyers)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Corsica Ferries France SAS, European Commission, French Republic

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul in part the judgment delivered by the General Court on 11 September 2012 in Case T-565/08 Corsica Ferries France SAS v European Commission in so far as it annuls the second and third paragraphs of Article 1 of Commission Decision 2009/611/EC of 8 July 2008 concerning the measures C-58/02 (ex N 118/02) which France has implemented in favour of the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) (1) on the grounds (i) that the Commission has committed an error in law and manifest errors of assessment so far as concerns its analyses of the negative sale price of EUR 158 million, of the capital contribution in conjunction and simultaneous with CGMF for an amount of EUR 8,75 million and aid to individuals for an amount of EUR 38,5 million; and (ii) that the analysis, by the Commission, of the balance for restructuring, for a final amount of EUR 15,81 million, was based on an incorrect premiss;

               —

               order Corsica Ferries to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant raises four grounds of appeal seeking that the judgment of the General Court be set aside in part.
   Firstly, in respect of the sale at a negative price, the appellant submits that the General Court has not only failed to have regard to the Commission’s discretion for the purposes of the application of the test of the private investor in a market economy, but has also committed an error of law as regards the interpretation of that test. The General Court distorted the Commission’s decision and failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons in adopting an interpretation of the test of the private investor in a market economy which was contrary to Article 345 TFEU.
   Secondly, in respect of the capital contribution, the appellant criticises the General Court for having distorted the Commission’s decision, in holding that that decision did not take into account all the relevant factors in its assessment of the comparable nature of the investment conditions of the private capital contributions made simultaneously.
   Thirdly, in respect of measures involving aid to individuals, the General Court not only distorted the Commission’s decision, but it also committed an error of law and failed to fulfil its obligation to state reasons as regards the advantage from which it held the SNCM benefited.
   Fourthly, having regard to the foregoing, the General Court’s reasoning relating to the balance for restructuring, calculated at EUR 15,81, is misplaced.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 225, p. 180


title: Case C-494/08 P: Appeal brought on 17 November 2008 by Prana Haus GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 September 2008 in Case T-226/07 Prana Haus GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/17

         Appeal brought on 17 November 2008 by Prana Haus GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 17 September 2008 in Case T-226/07 Prana Haus GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-494/08 P)
   (2009/C 32/26)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Prana Haus GmbH (represented by: N. Hebeis, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Eighth Chamber) of 17 September 2008 in Case T-226/07 Prana Haus GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

               —

               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The subject-matter of the dispute is the question whether the term ‘PRANAHAUS’ may be registered as a trade mark for the goods ‘recorded image and sound recording carriers of all kind; printed matter’ and for ‘retail services … for essential commodities …’. The Court of First Instance held that ‘PRANAHAUS’ was an indication directly and specifically describing the goods and services in question.
   In its appeal, the appellant claims infringement of the absolute grounds for refusal of protection of a descriptive indication under Article 7(1)(c)of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.
   According to the appellant, the Court of First Instance interpreted too broadly the legal term ‘to designate’ in Article 7(1)(c), contrary to the actual wording of the provision and the case-law of the Court of Justice. Furthermore, it erred in the assessment as to whether the designation ‘PRANAHAUS’ showed a sufficiently direct and specific relationship to the goods and services in question that the relevant public could ‘without further thought or analysis’ see in the term a ‘designation’ of the goods and services within the meaning of Article 7(1)(c). In doing so, the Court of First Instance failed to take into account the fact that several complex logical steps are required in order to identify even a hidden meaning in the term ‘PRANAHAUS’. In that context the Court of First Instance also failed to consider facts which would have had a bearing on the resolution of the case and as a result distorted the factual basis. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance failed to provide the required statement of reasons as regards the extent to which the term ‘PRANAHAUS’ could be considered to be descriptive of the specific goods and services. In addition, failing to have regard for the case-law of the Court of Justice, the Court of First Instance assumed that there was a need for the designation ‘PRANAHAUS’ to be kept free for competitors.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 September 2002 in Case T-211/02: Tideland Signal Limited v Commission of the European Communities (Public procurement — Rejection of tender — Failure to exercise power to seek clarification of tender — Action for annulment — Expedited procedure)

text:
26.4.2003               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 101/33
President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 February 2003, in
which it:                                                                                of 27 September 2002
1.     Dismisses the action;                                               in Case T-211/02: Tideland Signal Limited v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Public procurement — Rejection of tender — Failure to
                                                                           exercise power to seek clarification of tender — Action for
                                                                                annulment — Expedited procedure)
( 1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/60)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-211/02: Tideland Signal Limited, of which the
                                                                           registered office is in Redhill, Surrey (United Kingdom),
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               represented by C Thomas and C Kennedy-Loest, Solicitors,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J
                                                                           Forman) — application for annulment of the Commission
                       of 11 February 2003                                 decision of 17 June 2002 rejecting the applicant’s tender
                                                                           in procurement procedure EuropeAid/112336/C/S/WW —
                                                                           TACIS — (Re-tender) — the Court of First Instance (First
in Case T-30/02: Wolfgang Leonhardt v European Parlia-                     Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, N.J. Forwood
                               ment ( 1)                                   and H. Legal, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 September 2002, in
                                                                           which it:
(Officials — Reports — Promotion — Amendment to the
                 rules — Transitional measures)
                                                                           1.     Annuls the Commission decision of 17 June 2002 rejecting the
                                                                                tender submitted by Tideland Signal Limited for Lot 1 in the
                          (2003/C 101/59)                                         tender procedure for EuropeAid/112336/C/S/WW — TACIS
                                                                                — (Re-tender);
                    (Language of the case: French)                         2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
In Case T-30/02: Wolfgang Leonhardt, an official of the
European Parliament, residing in La Hulpe (Belgium), rep-
resented by H. Tagaras, avocat, against European Parliament
(Agents: H. von Hertzen and D. Moore) — application for
annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 11 June 2001
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
resetting at zero the tally of promotion points held by the
applicant on 1 January 2000 — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, R.M. Moura                                       of 13 December 2002
Ramos and H. Legal, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 2003,               in Case T-81/01: Marc Oscar Henri Verdoodt and Ingrid
the operative part of which is as follows:                                 Edmondus Malvina Rademakers-Verdoodt v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
1.     The Parliament’s decision of 11 June 2001 resetting at zero         (Action for annulment — Action becoming devoid of purpose
       the tally of promotion points held by Mr Leonhardt on                         — No need to adjudicate — Award of costs)
       1 January 2000 is annulled.
                                                                                (2003/C 101/61)
2.     The Parliament shall bear the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
( 1) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                                                                           In Case T-81/01: Marc Oscar Henri Verdoodt and Ingrid
                                                                           Edmondus Malvina Rademakers-Verdoodt, living in Schoten


title: Case C-253/15 P: Appeal brought on 29 May 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/10

         Appeal brought on 29 May 2015 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-253/15 P)
   (2015/C 254/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland, M. França, agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Chin Haur Indonesia, PT, Council of the European Union, Maxcom Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015, notified to the Commission on 23 March 2015, in Case T-412/13 Chin Haur Indonesia, PT v. Council of the European Union, reject the Application at first instance, and order the Applicant to pay the costs;
               or, alternatively,

               —

               refer back the case to the General Court for reconsideration; reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal brought by the Commission concerns the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015 in Case T-412/13. In that judgment, the General Court annulled, to the extent that it concerns Chin Haur Indonesia, PT, Article 1(1) and 3 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 (1) of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not.
   The Commission relies, in support of its appeal, on three grounds of appeal.
   First, the Commission argues that the General Court could not legally draw the conclusion that the Council had breached Article 13(1) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (2), because such a conclusion is based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant recital of the contested Regulation and on an incorrect interpretation of Article 13(1) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation. Second, the Commission argues that the General Court provided an insufficient and contradictory reasoning for its conclusion, in breach of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Third, the Commission considers that the General Court breached the procedural rights of the Commission under Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ L 153, p. 1.

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


title: Case T-335/16: Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Esko-Graphics v Commission

text:
               16.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/34

         Action brought on 28 June 2016 — Esko-Graphics v Commission
   (Case T-335/16)
   (2016/C 296/44)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Esko-Graphics BVBA (Ghent, Belgium) (represented by: H. Viaene, B. Hoorelbeke, D. Gillet and F. Verhaegen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare the application for annulment admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 11 January 2016 on the excess profit exemption State aid scheme SA.37667 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) implemented by Belgium, as published on the European Commission website on 4 May 2016;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589, (1) Article 107(1) TFEU and Article 296 TFEU in so far as the Commission wrongly classifies the contested measure as an aid measure.

                           —

                           The Commission infringes Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589 and Article 107(1) TFEU since it wrongly classifies the contested measure as an aid measure. The contested aid cannot be allocated solely on the basis of Article 185(2)(b) of the Wetboek van de inkomstenbelastingen van 1992 (Belgian Income Tax Code of 1992; ‘the WIB 1992’), but requires additional implementing measures in order for that provision to be applied.

                           —

                           The Commission infringes Article 296 TFEU in so far as its statement of reasons contains a contradiction. The contradiction lies in the fact that the Commission does not explain why, when assessing the criterion of selectivity, it takes the view that the previous decisions do not stem directly from Article 185(2)(b) of the WIB 1992, whereby it assumes, in assessing the existence of an aid measure, that the provision referred to does not require any additional implementing measures.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not correctly assess the existence of an advantage.

                           —

                           The Commission failed to investigate whether the contested aid measure led in fact to the conferral of an advantage, as contemplated by Article 107(1) TFEU, on the recipient undertakings. This was in spite of the fact that that condition is a prerequisite for State aid, and that the Commission is thus required to examine it before deciding on whether State aid exists, failing which it will be in breach of its obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 107(1) TFEU and breach of the obligation to state reasons under Article 296 TFEU, to the extent that the Commission did not correctly assess whether the contested measure was selective in nature.

                           —

                           Article 185(2)(b) of the WIB 1992 and the excess profit exemption system arising out of it are open to all undertakings in a comparable factual and legal situation and which conduct the economic transactions that form the subject matter of the contested measure. The contested measure is therefore not restricted to specific undertakings that can be defined on the basis of particular features, and is thus not selective for the purposes of Article 107(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           In the alternative, the Commission committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the exemption of excess profit did not form part of the reference system. The exemption of excess profit on the basis of synergies and economies of scale in application of the arm’s length principle is an integral component of the provisions that determine total taxable income, and thus cannot be regarded as constituting a derogation from the reference system that leads to selectivity.

                           —

                           In the further alternative, the Commission is unable to prove that the arm’s length principle was incorrectly applied by the Belgische Rulingcommissie (Belgian Tax Ruling Committee) in the context of the application of Article 185(2)(b) of the WIB 1992. The Commission’s reasoning is not coherent and takes into account important factors which are, however, contradictory or lack the requisite coherence.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty in imposing an obligation to recover.

                           —

                           On the basis of the well-established line of decisions of the Commission that did not call into question the application of the internationally recognised arm’s length principle, it would be at variance with the principle of legal certainty if an order for the recovery of the alleged aid were to be applied in the present case. On the basis of the existing line of decisions and case-law, it could not, in any event, have been foreseen that Article 185(2)(b) of the WIB would be contrary to Article 107 TFEU.

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


title: Case T-420/04: Action brought on 10 October 2004 by Kenneth Blackler against the European Parliament

text:
               4.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/54

         Action brought on 10 October 2004 by Kenneth Blackler against the European Parliament
   (Case T-420/04)
   (2004/C 300/104)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the European Parliament was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 October 2004 by Kenneth Blackler, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by Patrick Goergen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Secretary General of the European Parliament of 11 July 2004 confirming the decision of the selection board in competition PE/98/A for the establishment of a list of engineers with telecommunications expertise, to serve as a reserve list for the recruitment of Principal Administrators (A5/A4), not to admit the applicant to the oral tests of that competition;

               —

               annul all the previous steps and measures in the competition procedure at issue;

               —

               in the alternative, should the Court of First Instance not uphold the claim for annulment of the competition procedure, order the European Parliament to pay the applicant EUR 100 000 by way of damages for the material and non-material loss suffered by the applicant;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in this case challenges the refusal by the selection board in open competition PE/98/A not to admit him to the oral tests on the ground that, on appraisal of his application, he was placed in 38th position and only those placed in the first 15 were admitted to the oral tests. The competition was held for the purpose of drawing up a reserve list for the recruitment of Principal Administrators with telecommunications expertise.
   In support of his claims the applicant pleads:

               —

               Infringement of the competition notice insofar as the contested decision took the length of study as a criterion for deciding the mark to be awarded in respect of the certificates submitted by the candidates, ignored certain documents submitted by the applicant when he put in his application and also failed to award marks for qualifications in accordance with the criteria required by the notice of competition.

               —

               That there was a manifest error of assessment in this case, insofar as a miscalculation was made as to the length of the professional experience of the applicant, and a refusal to take account, in verifying whether he fulfilled at least eight of the 13 required areas of competence cited in the notice of competition, of both his published works and the details he gave of the work he had undertaken during his career.


C 211/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22.7.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-33/98 (1)               European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                   and Northern Ireland.
                       (2000/C 211/27)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
By order of 26 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-33/98: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-60/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/31)
                                                                   By order of 20 March 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
       Removal from the register of Case C-386/99 (1)              from the register of Case C-60/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling from the Supreme Court of Dublin): Carmen Proetta v
                       (2000/C 211/28)                             Andrew Neil.
By order of 29 February 2000 the President of the Court of         (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-386/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-48/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/32)
                                                                   By order of 30 March 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber
       Removal from the register of Case C-385/98 (1)              of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case C-48/99:
                       (2000/C 211/29)                             Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                   Luxembourg.
By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has            (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-385/98:
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-287/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/33)
       Removal from the register of Case C-455/99 (1)              By order of 30 March 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber
                                                                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                       (2000/C 211/30)                             ordered the removal from the register of Case C-287/99:
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Court of            Belgium.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-455/99: Commission of the              (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case T-345/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 — Complejo Agrícola v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora — Decision 2006/613/EC — List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region — Challengeable act — Lack of direct effect — Inadmissible)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/41

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2008 — Complejo Agrícola v Commission
   (Case T-345/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora - Decision 2006/613/EC - List of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region - Challengeable act - Lack of direct effect - Inadmissible)
   (2008/C 223/70)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Complejo Agrícola S.A. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Menéndez Menéndez and G. Yanguas Montero, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and D. Recchia, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: F. Díez Moreno, abogado del Estado)
   Re:
   Partial annulment of Article 1 of, and Annex 1 to, Commission Decision 2006/613/EC of 19 July 2006 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region (OJ 2006 L 259, p. 1), in so far as it declares the site designated as ‘Acebuchales de la Campiña sur de Cádiz’, which includes a farm belonging to the applicant, to be a site of Community importance for the Mediterranean biogeographical region.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Complejo Agrícola S.A. is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Commission;

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Case T-231/10: Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2013 — Merlin and Others v OHIM — Dusyma (Game) (Community design — Invalidity proceedings — Registered Community design representing a game — Earlier design — Grounds for invalidity — Novelty — Individual character — Distinction between goods and design — Articles 3, 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 October 2013 — Merlin and Others v OHIM — Dusyma (Game)
   (Case T-231/10) (1)

   (Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a game - Earlier design - Grounds for invalidity - Novelty - Individual character - Distinction between goods and design - Articles 3, 4, 6 and Article 25(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)
   2013/C 359/10
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicants: Merlin Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Forchtenberg, Germany); Rolf Krämer (Forchtenberg); BLS Basteln Lernen Spielen GmbH (Forchtenberg); and Andreas Hohl (Künzelsau, Germany) (represented by: R. Kramer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Dusyma Kindergartenbedarf GmbH (Schorndorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Zinnecker, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 March 2010 (Case R 879/2009-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between Merlin Handelsgesellschaft mbH and Others and Dusyma Kindergartenbedarf GmbH.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Merlin Handelsgesellschaft mbH, Mr Rolf Krämer, BLS Basteln Lernen Spielen GmbH and Mr Andreas Hohl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) of 2 July 1998 in Case T-236/97: Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Transfers of part of pay in the currency of a Member State other than the country where the institution has its seat)

text:
15.8.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 258/35
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           of the European Communities (Agents: during the written
                        of 25 June 1998                             procedure, Fernando Castillo de la Torre and, in the oral
                                                                    procedure, Gianluigi Valsesia and Eric Gippini Fournier)
in Case T-185/97: Philippe Godts v Commission of the                Ð application, first, for the annulment of the
                  European Communities (1)                          Commission's decisions of 23 September 1996 not to
(Member of the temporary staff Ð Contract for a limited             increase the amount transferred to the applicant's building
period Ð Possibility of its being extended Ð Actual                 loan savings account and of 28 April 1997 rejecting his
extension Ð Action for annulment Ð Manifest                         complaint, second, for a declaration that the applicant is
                        inadmissibility)                            entitled to the transfer of DKR 20 000 and, third, for
                                                                    compensation Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
                         (98/C 258/61)                              Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and
                                                                    A. Potocki, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for
                (Language of the case: French)                      the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 July 1998, in which it:
In Case T-185/97: Philippe Godts, a member of the                   1. Dismisses the application;
temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas
LhoeÈst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in        2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30
Rue de Cessange, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Florence                (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
Duvieusart-Clotuche) Ð application for annulment of the
Commission's decision of 1 August 1996 expressly
rejecting the applicant's request for an extension of his
contract as a member of the temporary staff, alternatively
for annulment of the Commission's decision of 11 March
1997 expressly rejecting his complaint Ð the Court of
First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,                   ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
President, C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung,                                   of 16 June 1998
Registrar, made an order on 25 June 1998, the operative
part of which is as follows:                                        in Case T-238/97: Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
1. The application is dismissed;                                    (State aid Ð Shipbuilding Ð Regulation laying down
                                                                    exceptions Ð Shipyards under restructuring states Ð
                                                                      Action brought by a regional authority Ð Admissibility)
2. The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                                (98/C 258/63)
(1) OJ C 252 of 16.8.1997.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                    In Case T-238/97: Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria,
                                                                    represented by Juan Ignacio SaÂez Bereciartu, of the
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           Cantabria Bar, v Council of the European Union (Agents:
                       (Third Chamber)                              Diego Canga Fano and Stephan Marquardt) Ð
                                                                    application for partial annulment of Council Regulation
                         of 2 July 1998                             (EC) No 1013/97 of 2 June 1997 on aid to certain
in   Case T-236/97: Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff                v      shipyards under restructuring states (OJ L 148 of
        Commission of the European Communities (1)                  6.6.1997, p. 1) Ð the Court of First Instance (First
                                                                    Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B.
(Officials Ð Transfers of part of pay in the currency of a          Vesterdorf, President, and C. W. Bellamy, R. M. Moura
Member State other than the country where the institution           Ramos, J. Pirrung and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
                          has its seat)                             Registrar, made an order on 16 June 1998, the operative
                         (98/C 258/62)                              part of which is as follows:
               (Language of the case: Spanish)                      1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
In Case T-236/97: Giovanni Ouzounoff Popoff, an
official working for the Commission of the European                 2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Antonio
Creus Carreras, Alex Subirachs Amigó and Marta Ventura              (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997.
Arasanz, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas, 78
Avenue d'Auderghem, 1040 Brussels, against Commission


title: Case C-655/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — H.J. Mertens v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 71 — Concept of a ‘partially unemployed frontier worker’ — Refusal of the Member State of residence and of the competent Member State to grant unemployment benefit)

text:
               30.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/12

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 February 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — H.J. Mertens v Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
      (Case C-655/13) (1)

      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 71 - Concept of a ‘partially unemployed frontier worker’ - Refusal of the Member State of residence and of the competent Member State to grant unemployment benefit))
      (2015/C 107/15)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Centrale Raad van Beroep

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: H.J. Mertens

         Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

         Operative part of the judgment

      Article 71(1)(a)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that a frontier worker who, immediately after the end of a full-time employment relationship with an employer in a Member State, is employed on a part-time basis by another employer in that same Member State has the status of a partially unemployed frontier worker within the meaning of that provision.

         (1)  OJ C 78, 15.3.2014.


title: Case C-39/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 27 January 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Vu Thang Dang

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), lodged on 27 January 2012 — Criminal proceedings against Vu Thang Dang
   (Case C-39/12)
   2012/C 118/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Party to the main proceedings

   Vu Thang Dang

      Question referred

   Are Articles 21 and 34 of Regulation (EC) No 810/2009, (1) which regulate the issue and annulment of a uniform visa, to be interpreted as precluding criminal liability, resulting from the application of national legislation, for the smuggling of foreign nationals in cases where, although they hold visas, the persons smuggled obtained those visas by deceiving the competent authorities of another Member State as to the true purpose of their journey?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 810/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 establishing a Community Code on Visas (Visa Code) (OJ 2009 L 243, p. 1).


title: Action brought on 19 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-208/96)

text:
 No C 247/8              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24 . 8 . 96
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                         Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of
 Pursuant to Article 189 of the Treaty, a directive is binding,          8 February 1996 in the administrative-law case of Gut
 as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to              Springenheide        GmbH          and       Rudolf Tusky       v.
 which it is addressed. According to established case-law,               Oberkreisdirektor      des      Kreises  Steinfurt  — Amt      für
that provision places Member States under an obligation to               Lebensmittelüberwachung,              Oberbundesanwalt     beim
 bring their legislation into conformity with directives within                      Bundesverwaltungsgericht, intervening
 the period prescribed therein .                                                                  ( Case C-2 10/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 247/ 15 )
 By not adopting within the prescribed period the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
comply with Council Directive 76/207/EEC , concerning the
                                                                         of the European Communities by order of the
principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards                Bundesverwaltungsgericht ( Federal Administrative Court )
working conditions, and by maintaining in force within its
                                                                         — Third Chamber — of 8 February 1996 , which was
own legal system rules prohibiting night-work for women ,
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 20 June 1 996 , for a
contrary to Article 5 of that Directive, the Italian Republic
                                                                         preliminary ruling in the case of Gut Springenheide GmbH
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law.
                                                                         and Rudolf Tusky v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises
                                                                         Steinfurt — Amt fur Lebensmitteliiberwachung ( Chief
(') O J No L 39 , 14 . 2 . 1976 , p . 40 .                               Administrative Officer of the Rural District of Steinfurt —
                                                                         Office for Supervision of Foodstuffs ), Chief Federal
                                                                         Prosecutor attached to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht,
                                                                         intervening, on the following questions :
                                                                         1 . For the purposes of making the requisite determination
                                                                             pursuant to Article 10 ( 2 ) ( e ) of Regulation ( EEC )
Action brought on 19 June 1996 by the Commission of the                      No 1 907/90 ( 1 ) whether statements designed to promote
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                        sales are likely to mislead the purchaser, is the actual
                          ( Case C-208/96 )                                  expectation of the consumers addressed to be
                                                                             determined or is the aforesaid provision based on the
                            ( 96/C 247/ 14 )
                                                                             criterion of an objectified concept of a purchaser which
                                                                             is to be the subject of a legal interpretation only ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              2.   In the event that the matter turns on consumers ' actual
 19 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                              expectations, the following questions arise :
Communities , represented by Hubert van Vliet, of its Legal                  ( a ) Is the view of the informed average consumer or
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                           that of the casual consumer determinative ?
Luxembourg at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz , of the
Legal Service of the Commission of the European                              ( b ) Can the proportion of consumers necessary in order
Communities, Wagner Centre , Kirchberg.                                            to establish a determinative expectation on the part
                                                                                of consumers be established in percentage terms ?
The applicant claims that the Court should :                             3.  In the event that the matter turns on the criterion of an
                                                                             objectified concept of a purchaser which can be the
 1 . declare that, by failing within the prescribed period                   subject of a legal interpretation only, the question arises
       to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative                     as to how that concept is to be determined .
       measures necessary in order to comply with Council
       Directive    92/ 119/EEC        of  17   December     1992        (') O J No L 173 , 1990 , p . 5 .
       introducing general Community measures for the
       control of certain animal diseases and specific measures
       relating to swine vesicular disease ('), the Kingdom of
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
       Treaty;
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Uudenmaan
2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                     Laaninoikeus by order of that court of 30 May 1996 in the
                                                                                proceedings brought by Outokumpu Oy
                                                                                ( Case C-213 /96 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
in Case C-205/96 ( 2 ); the time-limit for transposition                                            ( 96/C 247/ 16 )
expired on 1 October 19 93 .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Uudenmaan
(') OJ No I. 62 , 15 . 3 . 1993 , p. 69 .
( 2 ) See page 7 of the Official Journal .                               Laaninoikeus ( Uusimaa Provincial Administrative Court ) of
                                                                        30 May 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                        25 June 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                         brought by Outokumpu Oy on the following questions :


title: Case C-102/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 5 March 2002 in the administrative-law case of Ingeborg Beuttenmüller against Land Baden-Württemberg

text:
15.6.2002             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 144/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-               1.   Is Article 6(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive (1) also
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 28 February 2002 on                 applicable if a third party uses the indications referred to
the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale                   therein as trade marks?
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der
                          Region Wien)                               2.   If so, must their use as trade marks be taken into account
                                                                          when it is considered, pursuant to the final clause of
                                                                          Article 6(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, whether ‘honest
                         (Case C-91/02)                                   practices in industrial or commercial matters’ prevail?
                        (2002/C 144/24)
                                                                     (1) OJ L 40, 11 February 1989, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof (Administrative Court) of 28 February 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 15 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling
on the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der Region
Wien) on the following question:                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                     richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 5 March 2002 in
Is the increase in duty under Paragraph 108(1) of the Austrian       the administrative-law case of Ingeborg Beuttenmüller
Zollrechts-Durchführungsgesetz, which is payable in the event                      against Land Baden-Württemberg
of the incurrence of a customs debt under Articles 202 to 205
or 210 or 211 of the Customs Code or in the event of
subsequent recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code                                     (Case C-102/02)
and which corresponds to the amount which would have been
incurred as interest on arrears for the period between the
incurrence of the customs debt and the entry in the accounts,                                (2002/C 144/26)
and in the case of subsequent recovery under Article 220 of
the Customs Code between the date when the customs debt
originally entered in the accounts was due and the entry in the
accounts of the customs debt to be subsequently recovered,
contrary to Community customs provisions?
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                     Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 5 March 2002,
                                                                     received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2002, for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the administrative-law case of Ingeborg
                                                                     Beuttenmüller against Land Baden-Württemberg on the follow-
                                                                     ing questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundes-                    1.   Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 7 February 2002 in                  Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against                       general system for the recognition of higher-education
                         Putsch GmbH                                      diplomas awarded on completion of professional edu-
                                                                          cation and training of at least three years’ duration directly
                        (Case C-100/02)                                   applicable so that a national of a Member State may rely
                                                                          directly on the provisions of the directive where it has
                                                                          not been correctly transposed into national law?
                        (2002/C 144/25)
                                                                     2.   Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
                                                                          Directive 92/51/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 on a second
                                                                          general system for the recognition of professional edu-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    cation and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                    directly applicable so that, in the absence of implementing
(Federal Court of Justice) of 7 February 2002, received at the            measures enacted within the period prescribed for that
Court Registry on 18 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in              purpose, a national of a Member State may rely on
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against Putsch                those provisions of the directive as against all national
GmbH on the following questions:                                          provisions that are not in conformity with the directive?
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.6.2002
If the answer to question 1 and/or question 2 is in the                  6.    If Article 3, first paragraph, of Directive 92/51/EEC
affirmative:                                                                   applies to professional teaching qualifications awarded
                                                                               after only two years’ higher education and training in
3.    Does Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988                     Austria:
      on a general system for the recognition of higher-
      education diplomas awarded on completion of pro-
      fessional education and training of at least three years’                In the event of failure to transpose Directive 92/51/EEC
      duration, or Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June                      within the period prescribed in Article 17 thereof, does
      1992 on a second general system for the recognition                      Article 3, first paragraph, under (a), of that directive give
      of professional education and training to supplement                     rise to an entitlement to have a teaching qualification
      Directive 89/48/EEC preclude national legislation (in this               awarded in a Member State treated in the same way as
      instance, the Verordnung des baden-württembergischen                     the corresponding qualification for a teaching career in
      Kultusministeriums zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 89/48/                   the host Member State without the host Member State
      EWG des Rates vom 21. Dezember 1988 über eine                            being permitted — where the particular conditions are
      allgemeine Regelung zur Anerkennung der Hochschuldi-                     fulfilled — first of all to require compensating measures
      plome, die eine mindestens dreijährige Berufsausbildung                  to be applied under Article 4 of the directive?
      abschließen, für Lehrerberufe vom 15.08.1996 (Baden-
      Württemberg Ministry of Education regulation for the
      teaching profession of 15.08.1996 transposing Council
      Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general               (1) OJ L 019 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 25.
      system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas
      awarded on completion of professional education and
      training of at least three years’ duration, ‘EU-EWR-
      LehrerVO’) which makes recognition of a professional
      teaching qualification awarded or recognised in another
      Member State of the European Union
      a)    conditional, without exception, on completion of
            higher education and training of at least three years’
            duration,
      b)    requires the qualification to comprise at least two of       Action brought on 27 March 2002 by the Commission of
            the subjects stipulated for the teaching profession in       the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
            question in Baden-Württemberg?                                                           Netherlands
If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
4.    Is the second subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive                                     (Case C-113/02)
      89/48/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the qualifi-
      cation for the profession of primary-school teacher
      awarded on the basis of the former two-year system of                                       (2002/C 144/27)
      education and training in Austria is to be treated in the
      same way as a diploma within the meaning of the first
      subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48/EEC
      where the competent authority in Austria confirms that
      the examination certificate awarded following education            An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
      and training of two years’ duration is recognised, for the         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
      purposes of the application of the second subparagraph             on 27 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
      of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48/EEC, as being of a              Communities, represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent,
      level equivalent to the diploma (examination certificate)          assisted by M. van Der Woude and R. Wezenbeek-Geuke,
      currently awarded after three years’ study and confers the         lawyers.
      same rights in Austria in respect of the taking up or
      pursuit of the profession of primary-school teacher?
If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative:                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
5.    Is Article 3, second paragraph, of Directive 92/51/EEC
      to be interpreted, with regard to the recognition of               —     declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed
      professional teaching qualifications, as meaning that the                to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Council
      prerequisite of a ‘post-secondary course of more than                    Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1) of 1 February 1993 on
      four years’ duration,’ specified in that provision, only                 the supervision and control of shipments of waste
      encompasses the prescribed higher education and training                 within, into and out of the European Community and
      (higher-education studies) or as meaning that the pro-                   Articles 1(e) and (f) and 7(1) of Council Directive 75/442/
      bationary period of teaching practice (probationary ser-                 EEC (2) of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
      vice) counts towards the ‘post-secondary course of more                  Directive 91/156/EEC (3) of 18 March 1991, and under
      than four years’ duration’?                                              Article 82 EC in conjunction with Article 86 EC;


title: Case C-239/16 P: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Ante Šumelj and Others v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Action for damages — Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union — Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform — Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff — Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs — Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission — Appeal dismissed — Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/2

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 1 February 2017 — Ante Šumelj and Others v European Commission
   (Case C-239/16 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Action for damages - Act of accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union - Commitments relating to a strategy for judicial reform - Creation followed by the abolition of the position of public bailiff - Damage suffered by persons appointed as public bailiffs - Monitoring of the Republic of Croatia’s commitments by the European Commission - Appeal dismissed - Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part))
   (2017/C 129/02)
   Language of the case: Croatian

      Parties

      Appellants: Ante Šumelj, Dubravka Bašljan, Đurđica Crnčević, Miroslav Lovreković, Drago Burazer, Nikolina Nežić, Blaženka Bošnjak, Bosiljka Grbašić, Tea Tončić, Milica Bjelić, Marijana Kruhoberec, Davor Škugor, Ivan Gerometa, Kristina Samardžić, Sandra Cindrić, Sunčica Gložinić, Tomislav Polić, Vlatka Pižeta (represented by: M. Krmek, odvjetnik)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: S. Ječmenica and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Ante Šumelj, Ms Dubravka Bašljan, Ms Đurđica Crnčević, Mr Miroslav Lovreković, Mr Drago Burazer, Ms Nikolina Nežić, Ms Blaženka Bošnjak, Ms Bosiljka Grbašić, Ms Tea Tončić, Ms Milica Bjelić, Ms Marijana Kruhoberec, Mr Davor Škugor, Mr Ivan Gerometa, Ms Kristina Samardžić, Ms Sandra Cindrić, Ms Sunčica Gložinić, Mr Tomislav Polić and Ms Vlatka Pižeta are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.


title: Cases T-472/09 and T-55/10: Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014  — SP v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils — Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — Fixing of prices and payment terms — Limiting or controlling output or sales — Infringement of essential procedural requirements — Legal basis — Misuse of powers and abuse of procedure — Fines — Ceiling laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 — Action for annulment — Amending decision — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 9 December 2014 — SP v Commission
   (Cases T-472/09 and T-55/10) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for concrete reinforcing bars in bars or coils - Decision finding an infringement of Article 65 CS after the expiry of the ECSC Treaty on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - Fixing of prices and payment terms - Limiting or controlling output or sales - Infringement of essential procedural requirements - Legal basis - Misuse of powers and abuse of procedure - Fines - Ceiling laid down by Article 23(2) of Regulation No 1/2003 - Action for annulment - Amending decision - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 034/21)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: SP SpA (Brescia, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented, in Case T-472/09, initially by R. Sauer, V. Di Bucci and B. Gencarelli, and subsequently by R. Sauer and R. Striani, acting as Agents, assisted by M. Moretto, lawyer, and in Case T-55/10, initially by R. Sauer and B. Gencarelli, and subsequently by R. Sauer and R. Striani, assisted by M. Moretto)

      Re:

   In Case T-472/09, application for a declaration of the non-existence or for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption), in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 2 of that decision, and in the further alternative, application for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant, and in Case T-55/10, application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 9912 final of 8 December 2009, amending Decision C(2009) 7492 final.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Orders that Cases T-472/09 and T-55/10 be joined for the purposes of the judgment;

               2.

               In Case T-472/09, SP v Commission:

                           —

                           Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2009) 7492 final of 30 September 2009, relating to a proceeding under Article 65 CS (Case COMP/37.956 — Reinforcing bars, readoption) in so far as it imposes a fine of EUR 14,35 million jointly and severally on SP SpA;

                           —

                           Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                           —

                           Orders SP to bear half of its own costs;

                           —

                           Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay half of the costs incurred by SP;

               3.

               In Case T-55/10, SP v Commission:

                           —

                           Dismisses the action;

                           —

                           Orders SP to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-102/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Süd v SALIX Grundstücks-Vermietungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekt Offenbach KG (Sixth VAT Directive — Second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 4(5) — Option of Member States to consider activities of bodies governed by public law exempted under Article 13 and Article 28 of the Sixth Directive as activities of public authorities — Rules governing exercise of that option — Right to deduct — Significant distortions of competition)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Süd v SALIX Grundstücks-Vermietungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekt Offenbach KG
   (Case C-102/08) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 4(5) - Option of Member States to consider activities of bodies governed by public law exempted under Article 13 and Article 28 of the Sixth Directive as activities of public authorities - Rules governing exercise of that option - Right to deduct - Significant distortions of competition)
   2009/C 180/25
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Süd

      Defendant: SALIX Grundstücks-Vermietungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. Objekt Offenbach KG

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 4(5) and Article 13 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Classification of long-term letting of offices and parking spaces by a body governed by public law as an economic activity or as property management — Detailed rules for exercising the power of Member States to treat activities of bodies governed by public law which are exempt from tax under Article 13 or Article 28 of Directive 77/388/EEC as activities in which they engage as public authorities

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Member States must lay down an express provision in order to be able to rely on the option provided for in the fourth subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, according to which specific activities of bodies governed by public law that are exempt under Article 13 or Article 28 of that directive are considered as activities of public authorities

               2.

               The second subparagraph of Article 4(5) of Sixth Directive 77/388 must be interpreted as meaning that bodies governed by public law are to be considered taxable persons in respect of activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities not only where their treatment as non-taxable persons under the first or fourth subparagraphs of that provision would lead to significant distortions of competition to the detriment of their private competitors, but also where it would lead to such distortions to their own detriment.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 07.06.2008.


title: Case T-208/06: Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Quinn Barlo and Others v European Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for methacrylates — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Concept of single infringement — Duration of the infringement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances)

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/46

      Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2011 — Quinn Barlo and Others v European Commission
      (Case T-208/06) (1)

      (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for methacrylates - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Concept of single infringement - Duration of the infringement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances)
      (2012/C 25/86)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicants: Quinn Barlo Ltd (Cavan, Ireland); Quinn Plastics NV (Geel, Belgium); and Quinn Plastics GmbH (Mayence, Germany) (represented by: W. Blau, F. Wijckmans and F. Tuytschaever, lawyers)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by V. Bottka and S. Noë, and subsequently by V. Bottka and N. Khan, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of Articles 1 and 2 of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates) in so far as it relates to the applicants and, in the alternative, application for annulment of Article 2 of that decision in so far as it imposes a fine on the applicants or, in the further alternative, application for a reduction in that fine

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Annuls Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/F/38.645 — Methacrylates), first, in so far as it finds that Quinn Barlo Ltd, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (EEA) by participating in a complex of concerted agreements and practices, not only in respect of polymethyl-methacrylate solid sheet, but also polymethyl-methacrylate moulding compounds and polymethyl-methacrylate sanitary ware and, second, in so far as it holds those companies liable for their participation in the cartel from 1 November 1998 to 23 February 2000;

                  2.

                  Sets the amount of the fine for which Quinn Barlo, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH are jointly and severally liable under Article 2 of Decision C(2006) 2098 final at EUR 8 250 000;

                  3.

                  Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

                  4.

                  Orders Quinn Barlo, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH to bear 60 % of their own costs and to pay 60 % of the costs incurred by the European Commission;

                  5.

                  Orders the Commission to bear 40 % of its own costs and to pay 40 % of the costs incurred by Quinn Barlo, Quinn Plastics NV and Quinn Plastics GmbH.

         (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.