title: Case C-369/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2014  — Sommer Antriebs- und Funktechnik GmbH v Rademacher Geräte-Elektronik GmbH & Co. KG

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 31 July 2014 — Sommer Antriebs- und Funktechnik GmbH v Rademacher Geräte-Elektronik GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-369/14)
   (2014/C 439/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sommer Antriebs- und Funktechnik GmbH

      Defendant: Rademacher Geräte-Elektronik GmbH & Co. KG

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Articles 2(1) and 3(a) of, and Annexes IA and IB to, Directive 2002/96/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment and/or Articles 2(1)(a) and 3(1)(a) of, and Annexes I and II to, Directive 2012/19/EU (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on waste electrical and electronic equipment be interpreted as meaning that operating devices for (garage) doors with an electric voltage of approximately 220 to 240 volts, which are designed to be incorporated into the building structure together with the (garage) door, come within the concept of electrical and electronic equipment, in particular the concept of electrical and electronic tools?

               2)

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
               Must Annex IA, No 6, and Annex IB, No 6, to Directive 2002/96/EC and/or Article 3(1)(b) of, and Annex I, No 6, and Annex II, No 6, to, Directive 2012/19/EU be interpreted as meaning that (garage-door) operating devices, as referred to in Question (1), are to be regarded as components of large-scale stationary industrial tools within the meaning of those provisions?

               3)

               If the answer to Question (1) is in the affirmative and the answer to Question (2) is in the negative:
               Must Article 2(1) of Directive 2002/96/EC and/or Article 2(3)(b) of Directive 2012/19/EU be interpreted as meaning that (garage-door) operating devices, as referred to in Question (1), are to be regarded as part of another type of equipment which does not fall within the scope of those directives?

      (1)  Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) — Joint declaration of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission relating to Article 9, OJ 2002 L 37, p. 24.

      (2)  OJ 2012 L 197, p. 38.


title: Case C-33/01: Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 95/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.3.2001
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                     Action brought on 24 January 2001 by the Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                                (Case C-33/01)
                      of 19 September 2000
                                                                                (2001/C 95/06)
in Case C-89/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin): Bülent Recep Bicakci and
                      Others v Land Berlin (1)                              An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                            the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 Janu-
                                                                            ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Identical                       represented by Hans Stovlbaek, of its Legal Service, and
                               question)                                    Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on
                                                                            secondment to its Legal Service.
                           (2001/C 95/05)
                                                                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)                           —     declare that, by failing to communicate to the Com-
                                                                                mission within the time-limit laid down the information
                                                                                required by Article 8(3) of Directive 97/689/EEG, and (1)
                                                                                and by Commission Decision 96/302/EC (2) which is
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                envisaged by that provision, concerning every establish-
                    in the European Court Reports)                                ment or undertaking which carries out disposal and/or
                                                                                recovery of hazardous waste, the Hellenic Republic has
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that
In Case C-89/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                                directive.
from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Administrative Court,
Berlin) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Bülent Recep Bicakci, Bedriye                     —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
Bicakci, Hidajet Kemal Bicakci and Burak Bicakci and Land
Berlin — on the interpretation of Article 14(1) of Decision
No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the
Association, adopted by the Association Council established by
the Association Agreement between the European Economic                     Pleas in law and main arguments
Community and Turkey — the Court (Second Chamber),
composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the
Second Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Mischo,              Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689/EEC imposes en obligation
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                 on the Member States to send to the Commission certain
19 September 2000 in which it has ruled:                                    information relating to every establishement or undertaking
                                                                            which carries out disposal and/or recovery of hazardous waste.
Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council          The Commission states that the Hellenic Republic did not send
established by the Association Agreement between the European               the information prescribed by that directive within the time-
Economic Community and Turkey is to be interpreted as precluding            limit laid down (that is to say immediately after the entry into
the expulsion of a Turkish national who enjoys a right granted              force of Commission Decision 96/302/EC of 17 April 1996
directly by that decision when it is ordered, following a criminal          establishing a format in which information is to be provided
conviction, as a deterrent to other aliens without the personal conduct     pursuant to Article 8(3) of Directive 91/689/EEC) and, of
of the person concerned giving reason to consider that he will commit       course, has not notified the Commission of any changes in
other serious offences prejudicial to the requirements of public policy     that information.
in the host Member State.
                                                                            (1) OJ No L 377, 31.12.1991, p. 20.
( 1) OJ No C 149, 27.5.2000.                                                (2) OJ No L 116, 11.5.1996, p. 26.


title: Case C-263/14: Action brought on 28 May 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/11

         Action brought on 28 May 2014 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-263/14)
   2014/C 235/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: R. Passos, A. Caiola, M. Allik, agents)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania (1);

               —

               order that the effects of Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 be maintained until it is replaced;

               —

               order Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The European Parliament considers that Council Decision 2014/198/CFSP of 10 March 2014 on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and the United Republic of Tanzania on the conditions of transfer of suspected pirates and associated seized property from the European Union-led naval force to the United Republic of Tanzania is invalid because it does not relate exclusively to the common foreign and security policy, as expressly provided for in Article 218(6), second paragraph, TFEU.
   The European Parliament considers that the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Tanzania also relates to judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation, thus covering fields to which the ordinary legislative procedure applies.
   Therefore, this Agreement should have been concluded under the substantive legal bases of Articles 37 TEU and 82 and 87 TFEU, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament under Article 218(6)(a) TFEU.
   For this reason, the Council has violated the Treaties by failing to choose the appropriate legal basis for the conclusion of the Agreement.
   Furthermore, the European Parliament considers that the Council has violated Article 218(10) TFEU, because it did not inform Parliament fully and immediately at all stages of negotiations and conclusion of the Agreement.
   Should the Court of Justice annul the contested Decision, the European Parliament nonetheless proposes that the Court exercise its discretion to maintain the effects of the contested Decision, in accordance with Article 264, second paragraph, TFEU, until such time as it is replaced.

      (1)  OJ L 108, p. 1


title: Case C-385/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 September 2006 — Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant v Algemeene Directie voor de Arbeidsvoorziening

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 September 2006 — Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant v Algemeene Directie voor de Arbeidsvoorziening
   (Case C-385/06)
   (2006/C 310/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Raad van State (Netherlands)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant

      Defendant: Algemeene Directie voor de Arbeidsvoorziening
   Question(s) referred

               1.

                           a)

                           Can the Member State or one of its authorities derive a competence directly from a regulation — without a basis in national law?

                           b)

                           If so, does Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 (1) of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Council Regulation No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 (‘the coordination regulation’) confer authority to withdraw an order on the granting of a subsidy and to claim back the sum paid, on the basis that Article 23 of the coordination regulation requires the Member State to do that in so far as irregularities or negligence within the meaning of the said Article 23 are involved?

               2.

               If not, is a national legal provision like Article 4.49.1 of the Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht (General Law on Administrative Law), on the basis of which the authority may withdraw the determination of the subsidy or amend it to the detriment of the beneficiary if (a) there are facts or circumstances of which it could not reasonably have been aware at the time the subsidy was determined and which would have resulted in a lower subsidy being determined than that in the order on the granting of the subsidy, (b) the determination of the subsidy was made in error and the beneficiary knew this or should have known it, or (c) after the determination of the subsidy, the beneficiary has not fulfilled the obligations attached thereto, to be interpreted, pursuant to Article 10 EC in conjunction with Article 249 EC, in a manner that conforms to the regulation?

               3.

               If so, is that interpretation limited by general legal principles which form part of Community law, in particular the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations?

               4.

               If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, the question arises in relation to that limitation whether the national principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations which underlie Article 4.49.1 of the Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht (General Law on Administrative Law) can be more far-reaching than general principles of Community law, especially the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations which are to be complied with when applying the coordination regulation.

               5.

               Is it of any relevance, having regard to Article 10 EC when applying the Community law principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, that the beneficiary is a legal person under public law?

               6.

               Does it follow from Article 23(1) of the coordination regulation that the determination of the subsidy is to be withdrawn and the sums paid are to be recovered if it is established that the Member State has already repaid an unduly granted subsidy to the European Social Fund, or has in any event made a ruling to that effect, if, either on the basis of Article 23(1) of the coordination regulation or on the basis of Article 4.49.1 of the Alegemene Wet Bestuursrecht interpreted in accordance with the regulation, the determination of the subsidy is to be withdrawn and the sums paid are to be recovered?

               7.

               If there is no duty to withdraw and recover under Article 23(1) of the coordination regulation, are there other provisions of Community law, such as for example Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 (2) of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests, which contain a suggestion as to the legal basis on which the Member State is obliged, directly or through interpretation in conformity with the regulation of Article 4.49.1 of the Algemene Wet Bestuursrecht, to withdraw the determination of, and claim repayment of, subsidies granted in breach of Community law, such as that in dispute here?

      (1)  OJ L 374, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 312, p. 1.


title: Case C-37/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 22 January 2016 — Minister Finansów v Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców Utworów Muzycznych i Słowno-Muzycznych SAWP, established in Warsaw (SAWP)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) lodged on 22 January 2016 — Minister Finansów v Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców Utworów Muzycznych i Słowno-Muzycznych SAWP, established in Warsaw (SAWP)
   (Case C-37/16)
   (2016/C 145/22)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Minister Finansów

      Respondent: Stowarzyszenie Artystów Wykonawców Utworów Muzycznych i Słowno-Muzycznych SAWP, established in Warsaw (SAWP)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do authors, performers and other rightholders supply services, within the meaning of Articles 24(1) and 25(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) to producers and importers of audio recorders and similar devices and blank media, on whom collective management organisations levy on behalf of those authors, performers and other rightholders, but in their own name, fees on those devices and media by virtue of their sale?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, are collective management organisations, in levying a fee on devices and media by virtue of their sale by producers and importers, acting as taxable persons, within the meaning of Article 28 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), who are required to document those activities by means of an invoice for the purposes of Article 220(1)(1) of that directive, issued to producers and importers of audio recorders and similar devices and blank media, showing VAT as due by virtue of the fees, and, at the time at which the fees levied on behalf of the authors, performers and other rightholders are distributed to them, are the latter required to document receipt of the fees by means of an invoice indicating that VAT issued to the collective management organisation levying the fee?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case T-340/05: Action brought on  13 September 2005  — Adler Modemärkte/OHIM

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/28

         Action brought on 13 September 2005 — Adler Modemärkte/OHIM
   (Case T-340/05)
   (2005/C 296/61)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Adler Modemärkte GmbH (Haibach, Germany) [represented by: R. Kaase, lawyer]

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BVM S.p.A. (Bologna, Italy)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 23 May 2005 in Case R 434/2003-4 on the grounds that it does not comply with Art 8 (1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Eagle’ for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25 — application No 1 595 909

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BVM S.p.A.

      Mark or sign cited: The national and international figurative mark and word mark ‘Blue Eagle’ for goods in classes 3, 18 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the contested goods

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks. The overall impression of the two trade marks is substantially different and the component ‘eagle’ is not the dominating element of the opposition trade mark.


title: Case C-371/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Cepsa Química, S.A. v Administración del Estado

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/39

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Cepsa Química, S.A. v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-371/15)
   (2015/C 311/43)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Cepsa Química, S.A.

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Decision 2013/448/EU (1) contrary to the provisions of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and to Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2) in so far as the correction factor has been established by a mechanism which, in infringement of the obligation to state reasons, does not enable the operators of installations concerned to be informed of the data, calculations and criteria taken into account for its adoption?

               2.

               By defining and fixing as it does the cap for industrial emissions and the cross-sectoral correction factor provided for in Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EC (3) and Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU (4), does Decision 2013/448/EU infringe Articles 10a(1) and 23(3) of that Directive because it has not been drawn up in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny governed by Decision 1999/468/EC (5).

               3.

               Having regard to the fact that Decision 2013/448/EU and/or Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU create a discrepancy between:

                           —

                           the calculation basis governed by Article 10a(5)(a) and (b) of Directive 2003/87/EC, by not including in those bases emissions from electricity production related to the combustion of waste gases and from the cogeneration of heat which occur in installations included in Annex I to that Directive, and

                           —

                           the criteria laid down by Article 10a(1) and (4) of the Directive for the free allocation of emission allowances, which does include that type of emissions:

                                       a)

                                       Do Decision 2013/448/EU and/or Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU infringe Article 10a(5), in conjunction with Article 3(u) and the third subparagraph in fine of the aforementioned Article 10a(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC in that they consider that emissions produced by combustion of waste gases or by the generation of heat in installations which produce electricity and are included in Annex I to that Directive are in any event emissions from ‘electricity generators’ for the purpose of determining the industrial emissions cap, and must therefore be excluded from the calculation?

                                       b)

                                       Even if the reply to the previous question is in the negative, do Decision 2013/448/EU and/or Article 15 of Decision 2011/278/EU infringe Article 10a (5) of Directive 2003/87/EC and/or the objectives of that Directive insofar as they exclude from the basis of calculation of the industrial emissions cap governed by that provision emissions from electricity production from waste gases and from the cogeneration of heat, produced in installations included in Annex I to the aforementioned Directive, to which, however, emission allowances may be allocated free of charge under Article 10a(1) to (4) of the Directive?

               4.

               Are Commission Decision 2013/448/EU and, where appropriate, Decision 2011/278/EU, which it implements, contrary to Article 10a(12) of the Directive, because they extend the cross-sectoral correction factor to sectors defined in Commission Decision 2010/2/EU (6) (now Decision 2014/746/EU) (7) as they are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage, with the consequent reduction in free emission allowances allocated?

               5.

               Does Decision 2013/448/EU infringe Article 10a(5) of Directive 2003/87/EEC in so far as the European Commission, in order to determine the verified emissions carried out in the period 2005-2007 to which Article 10a(5)(a) and (b) refers:

                           a)

                           did not take into consideration emissions which were not included in the Community independent transaction log, even though, in the period under consideration, it was not obligatory to register such emissions.

                           b)

                           extrapolated, to the extent possible, the relevant emission figures from verified emissions in later years by applying the factor of 1,74 % in reverse direction.

                           c)

                           excluded all emissions from installations closed before 30 June 2011.

      (1)  2013/448/EU: Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27).

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

      (3)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).

      (4)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).

      (5)  1999/468/EC: Council Decision of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23).

      (6)  2010/2/EU: Commission Decision of 24 December 2009 determining, pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, a list of sectors and subsectors which are deemed to be exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage (OJ 2010 L 1, p. 10).

      (7)  OJ 2014 L 308, p. 114.


title: Action brought on 16 July 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-260/98)

text:
C 299/12                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   26.9.98
      placement of employees as not being contrary to                 payment of tolls by the user constitutes a supply of
      criminal law, with the result that the relevant                 services which must be subjected to value added tax. The
      penalising provisions of national law must be                   fact that that activity is carried out by public bodies does
      disapplied.                                                     not mean that it does not fall within the scope of VAT,
                                                                      since it constitutes an economic activity for the purposes
                                                                      of Article 2 of the sixth VAT Directive and is carried out
(b) Whether Articles 86 and 90 are to be interpreted as               by taxable persons within the meaning of Article 4 of that
      meaning that a system like that deriving from the               Directive, notwithstanding the fact that those persons are
      legislative amendments made by Law No 96 of                     public bodies.
      24 June 1997 and Legislative Decree No 469 of
      23 December 1997 constitutes an abuse of a
      dominant position.
                                                                      As regards the question of own resources, the Commission
                                                                      considers that, where the Sixth VAT Directive is infringed
( ) Case C-55/96 Job Centre [1997] ECR I-7119.
 1
                                                                      and consequently the base for the calculation of own
                                                                      resources is reduced, it must claim the amount of own
                                                                      resources which is owed by reason of that infringement.
                                                                      Otherwise the remaining Member States suffer financial
                                                                      loss and the principle of equality is infringed.
Action brought on 16 July 1998 by the Commission of the               (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
    European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                (2) OJ L 155, 7.6.1989, p. 1.
                                                                      (3) OJ L 155, 7.6.1989, p. 9.
                          (Case C-260/98)
                           (98/C 299/21)
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 16 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Goulousis, Legal                Action brought on 21 July 1998 by the Kingdom of the
Adviser, and HeÂleÁne Michard, of its Legal Service, with an               Netherlands against Commission of the European
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos                                       Communities
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                                       (Case C-278/98)
Kirchberg.
                                                                                (98/C 299/22)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
1. declare that, by failing, contrary to Articles 2 and 4 of          Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
     the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1), to subject           the European Communities on 21 July 1998 by the
     to value added tax road tolls, which constitute                  Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra
     consideration paid by the users in return for the                and Nynke Wijmenga, Assistant Legal Advisers at the
     supply to them of a service consisting of the making             Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Hague.
     available of motorways and other road infrastructure,
     and, in addition, by avoiding in that way payment of
     own resources and of the interest due (Council
     Regulations (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 (2) and (EEC,              The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Euratom) No 1553/89 (3)), the Hellenic Republic has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
                                                                      1. annul Commission Decision 98/358/EC (1) of 6 May
2. order the Hellenic Republic to make available to the                   1998 on the clearance of accounts presented by the
     Commission the own resources which have not been                     Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1994
     paid since 1987, together with interest for late                     of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural
     payment;                                                             Guidance and Guarantee Fund (notified under
                                                                          document number C(1998) 1124) (1), in so far as a
                                                                          sum of NLG 16 378 716,63 concerning expenditure
3. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                          on advance payments of export refunds is excluded
                                                                          from Community financing (reference C(98) 1124
                                                                          final);
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
According to the Commission, the grant of the right to use            2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the
a motorway or other road facility in return for the                       proceedings.


title: Case C-494/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 6 November 2014  — European Union, acting through the European Commission v Axa Belgium SA

text:
               2.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 34/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 6 November 2014 — European Union, acting through the European Commission v Axa Belgium SA
   (Case C-494/14)
   (2015/C 034/07)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: European Union, acting through the European Commission

      Defendant: Axa Belgium SA

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must the term ‘the third party [who caused the death, accidental injury or sickness of a person]’ used in Article 85a(1) of the Staff Regulations of European officials be interpreted autonomously in EU law, or does it refer to the meaning that the term has in national law?

               2)

               If the term has an autonomous scope, must it be interpreted as referring to any person who caused the death, accidental injury or sickness of a person or only a person who is liable by reason of a fault that that person has committed?

               3)

               If the term ‘the third party [who caused the death, accidental injury or sickness of a person]’ is to be interpreted in accordance with national law, does EU law require the national court to allow a subrogated claim lodged by the European Union where one of its officials has been the victim of a road traffic accident involving a vehicle in respect of which liability has not been established, inasmuch as Article 29a of the Law of 21 November 1989 on compulsory insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles provides for the automatic compensation of vulnerable road users by insurers who cover the civil liability of the owner, driver or keeper of the motor vehicle involved in the accident, without the civil liability of the owner, driver or keeper having to be established?

               4)

               Does the content of or system established by the Staff Regulations mean that the expenses incurred by the European Union under Articles 73 and 78 of those regulations must definitively remain its own responsibility?


title: Case C-318/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2007 — Hein Persche v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 11 July 2007 — Hein Persche v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid
   (Case C-318/07)
   (2007/C 247/04)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Claimant: Hein Persche

      Defendant: Finanzamt Lüdenscheid
   Questions referred

               1.

               Do donations of everyday goods by a national of a Member State to bodies which have their seat in a different Member State and, under the law of that Member State, are recognised as charitable, fall within the scope of application of free movement of capital (Article 56 EC)?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               Having regard to the obligation of tax authorities to verify statements made by taxable persons and to the principle of proportionality (Article 5(3) EC), is it incompatible with free movement of capital (Article 56 EC) for the law of a Member State to confer a tax benefit on donations to charitable bodies only if the latter are resident in that Member State?

               3.

               If question 2 is answered in the affirmative:
               Does Directive 77/799/EEC impose an obligation on the tax authorities of Member States to obtain assistance from the administrative authorities of another Member State in order to verify facts which have occurred in that other Member State, or can the procedural rules of a taxable person's home Member State require him to bear the burden of proof (objective burden of proof) in relation to facts which have occurred abroad?


title: Case T-392/02: Action brought on 26 December 2002 by Solvay Pharmaceuticals B.V. against Council of the European Union

text:
8.3.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 55/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     ing additives in feedingstuffs as regards withdrawal of the
                                                                                authorisation of an additive and amending Commission
—     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the                   Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999;
      Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM)
      of 1 October 2002 in Case 114/2000-1;
                                                                          —     order the Council to pay the costs;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                          —     in the alternative, should the application be dismissed on
                                                                                the merits, apply the first subparagraph of Article 87(3)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 of the Rules of Procedure and order the Council to pay
                                                                                the costs, in view of the persistent lack of cooperation
Applicant for the Com-        J. Tricot & Sons Ltd.                             and transparency on the part of the Commission in the
munity trade mark:                                                              administrative handling of the case.
The Community trade           ‘EMOS’          —       Application
mark concerned:               No 133637 for goods in Class 25
                              (articles of clothing)
Proprietor of the right to    Applicant                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:                                                              The applicant manufactures Nifursol, a feedingstuff additive.
                                                                          The applicant is contesting Council Regulation No 1756/
Trade mark or sign            German trade mark ‘EMOSWISS’                2002 (1). The contested regulation amends Council Directive
asserted by way of oppo-      registered in respect of goods              70/524/EEC ( 2) concerning additives in feeding-stuffs and
sition in the opposition      within Classes 10, 24 and 25                withdraws authorisation to place Nifursol on the market. That
proceedings:                                                              authorisation is linked, by virtue of Regulation No 2430/
Decision of the Oppo-         Application rejected                        1999 (3), to the person responsible for putting the product
                                                                          into circulation, in this case the applicant.
sition Division:
Decision of the Board of      Appeal dismissed
Appeal:
                                                                          In support of its application, the applicant alleges infringement
Grounds of claim:             Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)           of Articles 9m and 3a(b) of Directive 70/524/EEC and breach
                              of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (like-          of the precautionary principle. The sixth recital in the preamble
                              lihood of confusion).                       to the contested regulation states that it could not be guaran-
                                                                          teed that Nifursol does not present a risk for human health.
                                                                          According to the applicant, the Council altered the test
                                                                          referred to in the abovementioned articles according to which
                                                                          authorisation may be withdrawn only where it becomes
                                                                          apparent that the additive adversely affects human or animal
                                                                          health or the environment, or harms the consumer by
Action brought on 26 December 2002 by Solvay Pharma-
                                                                          impairing the characteristics of products.
    ceuticals B.V. against Council of the European Union
                         (Case T-392/02)
                                                                          The applicant further points out that the Council cannot rely
                         (2003/C 55/85)                                   on the precautionary principle since no reference is made
                                                                          thereto. In any event, the applicant claims that the Council is
                   (Language of the case: French)                         in fact choosing a purely hypothetical risk criterion which is
                                                                          irreconcilable with the case-law of the Court of First Instance
                                                                          which rules out a zero-risk level when applying the precaution-
                                                                          ary principle.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 26 December 2002 by Solvay Pharmaceut-
icals B.V., established in Weesp (Netherlands), represented by            The applicant also alleges infringement of the fifth indent of
Callista Meijer, Francis Herbert and Michel L. Struys, lawyers,           Article 9m of Directive 70/524 as amended and of the general
with an address for service in Luxembourg.                                principle of equal treatment. According to the applicant, the
                                                                          Council and the Commission could not base themselves on
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               the inadequacy of the information provided in order to
                                                                          withdraw authorisation, when the Commission has not made
—     annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 of 23 Sep-               use of its powers to enjoin the person responsible for placing
      tember 2002 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concern-                  an additive on the market to provide it with information.
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/34                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.3.2003
Finally, the applicant alleges breach of the fundamental                      Pleas in law and main arguments
principles of legal certainty, sound administration and good
faith. The applicant makes the point that it has, on numerous
occasions, approached the Commission without ever obtaining                   Trade mark for which         A three-dimensional mark in the
any indication which would have enabled it to provide results                 Community registration       form of a bottle standing on its
likely to be acceptable in the eyes of the Commission and the                 sought:                      head in the colours transparent
Council.                                                                                and white — Application
                                                                                No 1162395
( 1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1756/2002 of 23 September 2002                Goods or services:           Goods of Classes 3 and 20 (includ-
     amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feeding-                                        ing soaps, washing and bleaching
     stuffs as regards withdrawal of the authorisation of an additive                                      preparations, cleaning and pol-
     and amending Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 (Text                                            ishing preparations and artificial
     with EEA relevance) (OJ 2002 L 265, p. 1).                                                            containers for liquid, gel-like and
( 2) Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning
                                                                                pasty preparations)
     additives in feeding-stuffs (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (III),
     p. 840).
( 3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2430/1999 of 16 November                   Decision       challenged    Refusal of registration by the
     1999 linking the authorisation of certain additives belonging to         before the Board of          examiner
     the group of coccidiostats and other medicinal substances in             Appeal:
     feedingstuffs to persons responsible for putting them into circu-
     lation (Text with EEA relevance) OJ 1999 L 296, p. 3.
                                                                              Decision of the Board of     Dismissal of the complaint
                                                                              Appeal:
                                                                              Pleas in law:                —     The mark is distinguished by
                                                                                a number of special features
                                                                                and has distinctive force.
                                                                                —     The Board of Appeal disre-
                                                                                garded the characteristic
Action brought on 27 December 2002 by Henkel KGaA                                                                geometry of the mark.
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                                                           —     The mark has acquired pro-
                                                                                tection in several Member
                                                                                States.
                           (Case T-393/02)
                            (2003/C 55/86)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              Action brought on 27 December 2002 by Arnaldo Lucac-
                                                                               cioni against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                                                (Case T-394/02)
27 December 2002 by Henkel KGaA, Düsseldorf (Germany),
represented by C. Osterrieth, Rechtsanwalt, with an address
                                                                                (2003/C 55/87)
for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—       set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of
        the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
        3 October 2002 in Case R 313/2001-4, concerning
                                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
        Community trade mark registration application
                                                                              European Communities on 27 December 2002 by Arnaldo
        No 1162395;
                                                                              Lucaccioni, residing in St-Leonards-on-Sea (United Kingdom),
                                                                              represented by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvol-
—       order the Office to pay the costs.                                    vé, lawyers.


title: Case T-353/10 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2010 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission (Application for interim measures — Financial assistance — Debit note for recovery of financial assistance — Application for suspension of execution — Failure to have regard to formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/43

         Order of the President of the General Court of 25 October 2010 — Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro v Commission
   (Case T-353/10 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Financial assistance - Debit note for recovery of financial assistance - Application for suspension of execution - Failure to have regard to formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 346/86
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Lito Maieftiko Gynaikologiko kai Cheirourgiko Kentro AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Tzannini, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Sauka, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of execution of a debit note issued by the Commission on 22 July 2010 for the recovery of the sum of EUR 109 415,20 paid in the context of financial assistance in support of a medical research project.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed;

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Joined Cases C-359/11 and C-400/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Alexandra Schulz v Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co. KG and Josef Egbringhoff v Stadtwerke Ahaus GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directives 2003/54/EC and 2003/55/EC — Consumer protection — Internal market in electricity and natural gas — National legislation determining the content of consumer contracts covered by a universal supply obligation — Unilateral adjustment of the price of the service by the seller or supplier — Information, with adequate notice before the adjustment comes into effect, as to the reasons and preconditions for that adjustment and its scope)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 23 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Alexandra Schulz v Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co. KG and Josef Egbringhoff v Stadtwerke Ahaus GmbH
   (Joined Cases C-359/11 and C-400/11) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directives 2003/54/EC and 2003/55/EC - Consumer protection - Internal market in electricity and natural gas - National legislation determining the content of consumer contracts covered by a universal supply obligation - Unilateral adjustment of the price of the service by the seller or supplier - Information, with adequate notice before the adjustment comes into effect, as to the reasons and preconditions for that adjustment and its scope))
   (2014/C 439/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Alexandra Schulz and Josef Egbringhoff

      Defendants: Technische Werke Schussental GmbH und Co. KG and Stadtwerke Ahaus GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   On the one hand, Article 3(5) of Directive 2003/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 96/92/EC, read in conjunction with Annex A thereto, and, on the other, Article 3(3) of Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC, read in conjunction with Annex A thereto, are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which determines the content of consumer contracts for the supply of electricity and gas covered by a universal supply obligation and allows the price of that supply to be adjusted, but which does not ensure that customers are to be given adequate notice, before that adjustment comes into effect, of the reasons and preconditions for the adjustment, and its scope.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Joined Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11: Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Anicav and Others v Commission (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Aid in the fruit and vegetable sector — Actions for annulment — Whether directly concerned — Admissibility — Processed fruit and vegetables — Operational funds and operational programmes — Funding of ‘(non-)genuine processing activities’ )

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/64

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 May 2013 — Anicav and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-454/10 and T-482/11) (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Aid in the fruit and vegetable sector - Actions for annulment - Whether directly concerned - Admissibility - Processed fruit and vegetables - Operational funds and operational programmes - Funding of ‘(non-)genuine processing activities’)
   2013/C 225/143
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav) (Naples, Italy) (Case T-454/10); Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) (Madrid, Spain); and the sixteen other applicants whose names appear in Annex I to the judgment (Case T-482/10) (represented initially by J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, S. Estima Martins and S. Carvalho de Sousa, and subsequently by S. Estima Martins, S. Carvalho de Sousa and R. Oliveira, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented, in Case T-454/10, initially by B. Schima and M. Vollkommer, and subsequently by B. Schima and N. Donnelly, and, in Case T-482/11, by K. Banks and M. Schima, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the applicants in Case T-454/10: Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA) (Milan, Italy) and the ten other interveners whose names appear in Annex II to the judgment (represented initially by J.L. da Cruz Vilaça, S. Estima Martins and S. Carvalho de Sousa, and subsequently by S. Estima Martins, S. Carvalho de Sousa and R. Oliveira, lawyers)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Confederazione Cooperative Italiane (Rome, Italy) and the eight other interveners whose names appear in Annex III to the judgment (represented by: M. Merola, C. Santacroce and L. Cappelletti, lawyers)

      Re:

   APPLICATION, in Case T-454/10, for annulment of Article 52(2)a of, and Annex VIII to, Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector (OJ 2007 L 350, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 687/2010 of 30 July 2010 (OJ 2010 L 199, p. 12), and, in Case T-482/11, for annulment of Article 50(3) and Article 60(7) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors (OJ 2011 L 157, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the second subparagraph of Article 52(2)a of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 of 21 December 2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No 2200/96, (EC) No 2201/96 and (EC) No 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 687/2010 of 30 July 2010 in so far as it provides that the value of ‘[non-]genuine processing activities’ is included in the value of marketed production of fruit and vegetables intended for processing;

               2.

               Annuls Article 50(3) of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 of 7 June 2011 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 in respect of the fruit and vegetables and processed fruit and vegetables sectors in so far as it provides that the value of ‘[non-]genuine processing activities’ is included in the value of marketed production of fruit and vegetables intended for processing;

               3.

               Annuls Article 60(7) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011;

               4.

               Declares that it is not necessary to adjudicate on the action in Case T-454/10 in so far as that action seeks annulment of Annex VIII to Regulation No 1580/2007;

               5.

               Maintains the effects of the second subparagraph of Article 52(2)a of Regulation No 1580/2007 and of Article 50(3) of Implementing Regulation No 543/2011 to the extent only that payments to producer organisations executed pursuant to those provisions until delivery of this judgment are to be considered definitive;

               6.

               Orders, in Case T-454/10, the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay the costs of the Associazione Nazionale degli Industriali delle Conserve Alimentari Vegetali (Anicav) and of the interveners in support of the form of order sought by Anicav, whose names appear in Annex II;

               7.

               Orders, in Case T-454/10, the interveners in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, whose names appear in Annex III, to bear their own costs;

               8.

               Orders, in Case T-482/11, the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay the costs of the Agrupación Española de Fabricantes de Conservas Vegetales (Agrucon) and of the other applicants whose names appear in Annex I;

               9.

               Orders, in Case T-482/11, the interveners in support of the form of order sought by the Commission, whose names appear in Annex III, to bear their own costs;

      (1)  OJ C 328, 4.12.2010.


title: Case T-27/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 October 2007 — U.S. Steel Košice v Commission (Action for annulment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — National allocation plan for emission allowances for Slovakia in respect of the period from 2008 to 2012 — Commission rejection decision — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/42

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 1 October 2007 — U.S. Steel Košice v Commission
   (Case T-27/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - National allocation plan for emission allowances for Slovakia in respect of the period from 2008 to 2012 - Commission rejection decision - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)
   (2007/C 297/85)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: U.S. Steel Košice s.r.o. (Košice, Slovakia) (represented by: E. Vermulst, Lawyer, and C. Thomas, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Lawunmi and U. Wölker, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's Decision of 29 November 2006 on the national allocation plan for the allocation of emissions allowances for greenhouse gases notified by the Slovak Republic for the period from 2008 to 2012, in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               U.S. Steel Košice s.r.o shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case F-61/07: Action brought on 18 June 2007 — Bauch v Commission

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/52

         Action brought on 18 June 2007 — Bauch v Commission
   (Case F-61/07)
   (2007/C 199/101)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Gerhard Bauch (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: W. Uhlmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Direct the defendant to amend its certificate of 12 March 2003 or, alternatively, to issue further confirmation to the applicant to the effect that the amount repaid to the applicant does not amount to a severance grant by way of compensation for retirement pension rights or, therefore, to a retirement pension or the equivalent of a retirement pension;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant was employed by the Commission of the European Communities as a member of the temporary staff. He was granted unpaid leave for that period of employment from his post as an official of the then Federal Ministry of Economics. The Ministry reduced the applicant's retirement pension because of the cumulation of pension benefits and a pension from international and supranational employment, as the Commission of the European Communities had issued the applicant with a certificate concerning the payment of a severance grant in compensation for pension rights.
   The applicant complains that the Commission's certificate is defective inasmuch as members of the temporary staff cannot acquire pension rights owing to the short period of service (Articles 77 to 84 of the Staff Regulations), and the applicant was thus merely refunded the pension fund contributions that had been deducted.


title: Case C-685/13: Order of the President of the Court of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Belgacom SA v Commune de Fléron

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/23

      Order of the President of the Court of 11 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège — Belgium) — Belgacom SA v Commune de Fléron
      (Case C-685/13) (1)

      (2015/C 016/34)
      Language of the case: French
      The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

         (1)  OJ C 61, 1.3.2014.


title: Case C-491/11 P: Appeal brought on 26 September 2011 by Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 July 2011 in Case T-451/10 Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH v Commission

text:
               14.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/3

         Appeal brought on 26 September 2011 by Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 21 July 2011 in Case T-451/10 Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH v Commission
   (Case C-491/11 P)
   2012/C 13/07
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Fuchshuber Agrarhandel GmbH (represented by: G. Lehner, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               conduct a hearing;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the appellant within 14 days the sum of EUR 2 623 282,31, together with interest of 6 % per annum on the sum of EUR 1 641 372,50 from 24 September 2007 and interest of 6 % per annum on the sum of EUR 981 909,81 from 16 October 2007;

               —

               declare that the European Commission is obliged to compensate the appellant for any further losses in connection with lot KUK459 awarded on 3 September 2007 and lot KUK465 awarded on 17 September 2007;

               —

               rule that the European Commission is to pay the appellant’s costs to the appellant’s lawyer within 14 days.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is directed against an order of the General Court, by which it dismissed, due to lack of any foundation in law, an action for damages in respect of the loss allegedly incurred by the applicant and appellant because the Commission did not check the conditions for the implementation of standing invitations to tender for the resale on the Community market of cereals, in this case maize, held by the Hungarian intervention agency.
   The General Court’s interpretation of the law, according to which the Commission cannot be accused of any unlawful conduct, is incorrect as the case-law (1) cited by the General Court cannot be applied to the present case.
   Contrary to the interpretation of the General Court, it follows from the relevant provisions (2) that standing invitations to tender for the resale of cereals held by the intervention agencies of the Member States are to be managed by the Commission. In doing so, the Commission has both the competence to take decisions and a duty to conduct checks. (3) There was no discretion on the part of those intervention agencies.
   The Commission’s duty to conduct checks serves not only to protect the financial interests of the European Union, but also to protect the interests of individual market participants. Regulation No 884/2006 (4) sets out in specific terms the duty to conduct checks, to the effect that all intervention stores are to be checked at least once a year by the paying agencies in respect of proper conservation and the integrity of intervention stocks and a copy of the inspection reports must then be sent to the Commission. Those provisions were grossly disregarded in the present case.
   The Commission’s failure to exercise its powers of inspection prior to the invitation to tender at issue in the present case thus constitutes an aggravated and serious breach of duty.
   In addition, the General Court made procedural errors in that it classified the statement of facts provided by the present appellant as incorrect without any taking of evidence and without a hearing.

      (1)  Judgment of the Court of 1 January 2001 in Case C-247/98 Commission v Greece and judgment of the General Court of 13 November 2008 in Case T-224/04 Italy v Commission.

      (2)  In particular Articles 6 and 24 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (OJ 2003 L 270, p. 78).

      (3)  Article 37 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) of intervention measures in the form of public storage operations and the accounting of public storage operations by the paying agencies of the Member States (OJ 2006 L 171, p. 35).


title: Case C-229/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Colin Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main (Directive 2008/78/EC — Article 4(1) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — National provision setting a maximum age of 30 years for the recruitment of officials to posts in the fire service — Aim pursued — Genuine and determining occupational requirement)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 January 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany)) — Colin Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main
   (Case C-229/08) (1)

   (Directive 2008/78/EC - Article 4(1) - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - National provision setting a maximum age of 30 years for the recruitment of officials to posts in the fire service - Aim pursued - Genuine and determining occupational requirement)
   2010/C 63/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Colin Wolf

      Defendant: Stadt Frankfurt am Main

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) — Interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 17 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16) — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Differences of treatment on grounds of age which are ‘objectively and reasonably justified’ and the ‘need for a reasonable period of employment before retirement’ — National provision laying down a maximum recruitment age of 30 for officers in the fire service

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which sets the maximum age for recruitment to intermediate career posts in the fire service at 30 years.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 30.8.2008.


title: Case C-47/09: Action brought on 2 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               4.4.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/18

         Action brought on 2 February 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-47/09)
   (2009/C 82/33)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and M. Nardi, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that, by making it possible to add the adjective ‘puro’ or the phrase ‘pure chocolate’ to the sales names of chocolate products which do not contain vegetable fat other than cocoa butter, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of Directive 2000/36/EC (1) in conjunction with Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2000/13/EC (2) and Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/36;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The labelling and, in particular, sales names of chocolate products have been totally harmonised within the Community, with the aim of ensuring that the consumer is given accurate information, by means of the directive on labelling (2000/13) and the directive on chocolate products (2000/36). Directive 2000/36 provides that products which contain a maximum of 5 % of certain vegetable fats are to be allowed to retain their sales names unchanged but the labelling of those products must contain the specific statement, in bold letters, ‘contains vegetable fats in addition to cocoa butter’.
   The Italian legislation at issue, which restricts the addition of the word ‘puro’ to the sales name of products containing only cocoa butter by way of fat alters the harmonised definitions adopted at Community level and undermines them. Given that, in Italian, the word ‘puro’ means unadulterated, untouched and therefore genuine, consumers are led to believe that goods which, while complying with the directive and the conditions laid down therein relating to sales names, contain vegetable fats other than cocoa butter and are not pure, that is to say, they are adulterated, processed and not genuine. That is attributable to the simple fact that those products contain vegetable fats of a kind and in an amount which are nevertheless permitted by the legislation itself without requiring a change in the sales name.
   Moreover, the word ‘puro’ is an adjective which qualifies the noun and its use in sales names is subject to compliance with a number of conditions. In particular, Article 3(5) of Directive 2000/36 provides that the use of information or descriptions relating to quality criteria is subject to compliance with conditions laying down a minimum content for dry cocoa solids which is greater than that laid down for the use of names in which those descriptions do not appear. The Italian legislation makes the use of the word ‘puro’ subject simply to the presence of cocoa butter by way of fat and there is no requirement to comply with the higher minimum content for dry cocoa solids. That constitutes an infringement of Article 3(5) of the directive and is misleading for the consumer.

      (1)  Directive 2000/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 June 2000 relating to cocoa and chocolate products intended for human consumption (OJ 2000 L 197, p. 19).

      (2)  Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (OJ 2000 L 109, p. 29).


               9.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/23

         Action brought on 11 January 2017 by Konkurrenten.no AS against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-1/17)
   (2017/C 73/13)
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 11 January 2017 by Konkurrenten.no AS, represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, N-0151 Oslo, Norway.
   The Applicant requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               Annul ESA Decision No 179/15/COL dated 7 May 2015; and

               2.

               Order the defendant and any intervener to pay the costs.

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

               —

               The applicant, Konkurrenten.no AS, is a privately owned operator in the express bus market between the central and southern regions of Norway.

               —

               On 23 March 2011, Konkurrenten filed a combined State aid and public procurement complaint against Norway, which led to the EFTA Surveillance Authority opening two separate investigations: one on public procurement issues (ESA cases no. 69548 and 69656) and one on State aid issues (ESA cases no. 69694 and 73321).

               —

               The public procurement part of the complaint led to the EFTA Surveillance Authority delivering a reasoned opinion against Norway on 27 June 2012.

               —

               The State aid part of the complaint led to the contested decision, No 179/15/COL of 7 May 2015.

               —

               On 7 July 2015 in accordance with Article 5 of the contested decision, the Norwegian authorities informed the EFTA Surveillance Authority, by letter, that the total amount of unlawful aid granted to Nettbuss, a competitor of the Applicant, was NOK 99 453 890.

               —

               On 7 September 2015, the time limit in Article 4 of the contested decision for Norway to recover the unlawful aid expired without recovery taking place.

               —

               Nettbuss refused to pay the recovery claim, and the conflict over the recovery led to the Norwegian authorities asking ESA for a clarification of the contested decision in a letter dated 6 October 2015. In its response of 26 October 2015, the EFTA Surveillance Authority explained that it did not agree with the interpretation of the Norwegian authorities and sided with Nettbuss.

               —

               In a subsequent letter to the EFTA Surveillance Authority, dated 12 November 2015, the Norwegian authorities noted that, as a result of the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s interpretation of the contested decision, the recovery claim would have to be significantly reduced.

               —

               On 8 September 2016, the County of Aust-Agder and Nettbuss entered into a settlement agreement whereby Nettbuss agreed to pay back NOK 5 000 000.

               —

               The Applicant disagrees with the interpretation of the EFTA Surveillance Authority and submits that the contested decision has left intact virtually all State aid received by Nettbuss from the County of Aust-Agder, during a 10-year period from 2004–2014.


title: Case T-596/10: Action brought on 28 December 2010 — Almunia Textil v OHIM — FIBA Europe (EuroBasket)

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/20

         Action brought on 28 December 2010 — Almunia Textil v OHIM — FIBA Europe (EuroBasket)
   (Case T-596/10)
   2011/C 80/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Almunia Textil, SA (La Almunia de Doña Godina, Spain) (represented by: J. E. Astiz Suárez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: FIBA Europe eV (Munich, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 October 2010 in Case R 280/2010-1.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: FIBA Europe eV.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EuroBasket’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 24, 25, 26, 28, 35, 38 and 41.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Almunia Textil, SA.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national figurative marks containing the word element ‘Basket’, for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and Community trade mark application rejected in part for goods in Classes 9, 25, 28 and 41.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and opposition rejected.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-86/08: Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2012 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — Expenditure excluded from financing — Fruit and vegetables — Rural development — Non-compliance with payment deadlines — Compliance with a judgment of the Court — Authority of res judicata — Time-limit of 24 months — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 July 2012 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-86/08) (1)

   (EAGGF - Guarantee Section - Expenditure excluded from financing - Fruit and vegetables - Rural development - Non-compliance with payment deadlines - Compliance with a judgment of the Court - Authority of res judicata - Time-limit of 24 months - Principle of proportionality)
   2012/C 243/23
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented: initially by V. Kontolaimos, S. Charitaki and M. Tassopoulou and subsequently by M. Tassopoulou and I. Chalkias and K. Tsagkaropoulos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe, acting as Agent, and P. Katsimani, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2008/68/EC of 20 December 2007 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2008 L 18, p. 12) in so far as it relates to certain expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 January 2001 in Case C-83/99: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Application of a reduced rate to motorway tolls)

text:
2.6.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 161/5
1.    Orders Vetroresina Spa (TVR) to pay the Commission of the            1.    Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to
      European Communities the sum of EUR 77 558,80, together                    the supply of services consisting in making road infrastructure
      with interest at the agreed rate from 1 February 1990 until the            available to users on payment of a toll, the Kingdom of Spain
      debt is paid in full;                                                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12(3)(a) of the
                                                                                Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;                                the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                                turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
3.    Dismisses Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (TVR)’s counterclaim;                 basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 96/95/EC
                                                                                of 20 December 1996;
4.    Orders Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (M) to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         of 18 January 2001
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
in Case C-83/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                    ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)                                                     of 18 January 2001
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     in Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communi-
Article 12(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive — Application                                        ties v Italian Republic (1)
               of a reduced rate to motorway tolls)
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                            (2001/C 161/09)                                Freedom of movement for workers — Freedom of establish-
                                                                                ment — Dentists — Residence conditions)
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                                (2001/C 161/10)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-83/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: M. Dı́az-Llanos La Roche and C. Gómez de la Cruz) v
Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) — application                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
for a declaration that, by applying a reduced rate of value                                    in the European Court Reports)
added tax to the supply of services consisting in making road
infrastructure available to users, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of the Sixth             In Case C-162/99: Commission of the European Communities
Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the                       (Agents: F.P. Ruggen Laderchi and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                 (Agents: U. Leanza, assisted by F. Quadri) — application for a
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 declaration that:
basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 1977, p. 1), as amended by
Council Directive 96/95/EC of 20 December 1996 (OJ L 338,                  —     by allowing Legislative Decree No 233 of the Provisional
1996, p. 89) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La                     Head of State of 13 September 1946, despite amendment
Pergola (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,                     by Article 9 of Law No 362 of 8 November 1991, to
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,                          remain in force in such a way as to leave dentists
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment                      practising in Italy still subject to a de facto residence
on 18 January 2001, in which it:                                                 requirement,


title: Case T-559/13: Action brought on 25 October 2013 — Giovanni Cosmetics v OHIM — Vasconcelos & Gonçalves (GIOVANNI GALLI)

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/23

         Action brought on 25 October 2013 — Giovanni Cosmetics v OHIM — Vasconcelos & Gonçalves (GIOVANNI GALLI)
   (Case T-559/13)
   2014/C 24/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Giovanni Cosmetics, Inc. (Rancho Dominguez, United States) (represented by: J. van den Berg and M. Meddens-Bakker, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vasconcelos & Gonçalves, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 August 2013 given in Case R 1189/2012-2;

               —

               Order that the CTM application No 9 232 471 be refused;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘GIOVANNI GALLI’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 14 and 18 — Community trade mark application No 9 232 471

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2 404 283 of the word mark ‘GIOVANNI’ for goods in Class 3

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b)CTMR.


title: Case T-584/11: Order of the General Court of 11 December 2012 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for revocation — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/24

         Order of the General Court of 11 December 2012 — Atlas Transport v OHIM — Hartmann (ATLAS TRANSPORT)
   (Case T-584/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for revocation - No need to adjudicate)
   2013/C 38/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Atlas Transport GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: U. Hildebrandt, K. Schmidt-Hern and B. Weichhaus, lawyers)

      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: Alfred Hartmann (Leer, Germany)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 September 2011 (Case R 2262/2010-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Mr Alfred Hartmann and Atlas Transport GmbH.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               The parties are to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.


title: Case T-354/99: Judgement of the Court of First Instance of  31 May 2006  — Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Commission notice on the  de minimis  rule for State aid — Increase in excise duties on fuel — Aid to service stations — Oil companies — Risk of cumulation of aid — Price management system clause — Principle of sound administration)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/31

         Judgement of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2006 — Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-354/99) (1)

   (State aid - Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State aid - Increase in excise duties on fuel - Aid to service stations - Oil companies - Risk of cumulation of aid - Price management system clause - Principle of sound administration)
   (2006/C 178/56)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Kuwait Petroleum (Nederland) BV (represented by: P. Mathijsen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by G. Rozet and H. Speyart, and subsequently by G. Rozet and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents)

      Intervening party supporting the applicant: Kingdom of the Netherlands, (represented initially by M. Fierstra, and subsequently by H. Sevenster, acting as Agents)

      Re:
   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 1999/705/EC of 20 July 1999 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for 633 Dutch service stations located near the German border (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87)
   Operative part of the judgement
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 8.4.2000.