title: Case C-392/02: Action brought on 8 November 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark

text:
C 31/4                  EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          8.2.2003
court between The Queen and Secretary of State for Health, ex                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law
parte: British American Tobacco (Investments) Ltd and                              and in particular infringed Article 10 EC and Articles 2
Imperial Tobacco Ltd, supported by Japan Tobacco Inc. and JT                       and 8 of Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom of
International SA, on the validity and interpretation of Directive                  31 October 1994 on the system of the European
2001/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of                        Communities own resources ( 1);
5 June 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning
the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products
                                                                             —     order the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs of the
(OJ 2001 L 194, p. 26), the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-
                                                                                present proceedings.
guez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Cham-
bers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), P. Jann,
V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hew-
lett, Principal Administrator, and M.-F. Contet, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December 2002,
in which it has ruled:                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
1.     Consideration of the first question has not disclosed any factor
       of such a kind as to affect the validity of Directive 2001/37/
       EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June
       2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and                The Community Customs Code regulates the relationship
       administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the         between undertakings and the national authorities, which
       manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products.               governs the collection of the traditional own resources on
                                                                             behalf of the Community, whereas the relationship between
                                                                             the Community and the Member States is regulated by the
2.     Article 7 of Directive 2001/37 is to be construed as applying
                                                                             provisions of the Community financing scheme, that is,
       only to tobacco products marketed within the European
                                                                             in particular, Council Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom, the
       Community.
                                                                             implementing provisions of Council Regulation No 1552/
                                                                             89 (2) and also the general obligations under Article 10 EC.
                                                                             The fact that a purely technical link is created between the two
( 1) OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.
                                                                             aforementioned sets of rules, in that Regulation No 1552/89
                                                                             covers to a certain extent various stages which under the
                                                                             Community Customs Code are carried out as part of the
                                                                             determination of the amount of duty owing and the rules for
                                                                             collection thereof, has no bearing on the issue of national
                                                                             authorities’ financial liability to the Community for any errors
                                                                             committed in the course of collecting the traditional own
                                                                             resources. The protection given to the person liable for
Action brought on 8 November 2002 by the Commission                          payment by the Customs Code, in particular Article 220(2)(b)
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                           thereof, cannot be relied on by the Member State as against
                               Denmark                                       the Commission when that Member State has not collected the
                                                                             resources in question. If a Member State fails to collect the
                                                                             traditional own resources, it can, subject to certain conditions,
                           (Case C-392/02)                                   be freed from the obligation to place those resources at the
                                                                             disposal of the Commission only under Article 17 of Regu-
                                                                             lation No 1552/89.
                            (2003/C 31/07)
An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought                         In a number of cases in the period 1996-1997 the Danish
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   authorities allowed the zero-rated import of frozen sugar peas
8 November 2002 by the Commission of the European                            from the People’s Republic of China, despite the fact that the
Communities, represented by H.P. Hartvig and G Wilms, acting                 undertaking in question did not have a permit to import the
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                        goods at such a rate because of their particular end-use. There
                                                                             were even divergent opinions amongst the regional Danish
                                                                             authorities, which led to a finding on the part of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  Commission, at the request of the Danish authorities and
                                                                             pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC)
—      rule that since the Danish authorities have not transferred           No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
       to the Commission an amount of DKK 140 409,60 from                    Customs Code ( 3) that, due to an error on the part of the
       its own resources together with default interest thereon              Danish authorities, it could not require the importer to pay
       as from 20 December 1999, the Kingdom of Denmark                      duty for any of the imports in question.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.2.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 31/5
The determination of the time when the fixing (finding) should          The applicant claims that the Court should:
have taken place makes it possible to calculate the period
within which the own resources in question should have been
credited to the Commission’s account, in accordance with                —     Declare that
Article 10 of Regulation No 1552/89. Failure to comply within
that period triggers the obligation to pay default interest
pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 1552/89, an obli-                     (a)   by failing to adopt the measures necessary to comply
gation which, according to the case-law of the Court, arises                        with Articles 4, 9 and 13 of Council Directive 75/
without its being necessary to examine the reasons for the                          442/EEC ( 1), amended by Directive 91/156/EEC (2),
failure to comply within that period.                                               inasmuch as it failed to take the necessary measures
                                                                                to ensure that waste from the pig farm located in ‘El
                                                                                Pago de la Media Legua’ is recovered or disposed of
( 1) OJ 1994 L 293, p. 9.
                                                                                without endangering human health and without
( 2) OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.
( 3) OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.
                                                                                harming the environment and insofar as the farm
                                                                                was not covered by the authorisation required under
                                                                                the directive and by failing to carry out the requisite
                                                                                regular checks in respect of such establishments;
                                                                              (b) by failing to carry out an impact assessment prior to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesarbeits-
                                                                                the construction or modification of the project,
gericht by order of that Court of 27 June 2002 in the case
                                                                                contrary to the requirements of Articles 2 and 4(2)
of Gérard Merida against Federal Republic of Germany,
                                                                                of Council Directive 85/337/EEC ( 3), either in its
      represented by the Amt für Verteidigungslasten
                                                                                original wording or as amended by Directive 97/11/
                                                                                EC (4);
                          (Case C-400/02)
                           (2003/C 31/08)                                     (c)   by failing to carry out the requisite hydrological
                                                                                studies in the area affected by pollution, in accord-
                                                                                ance with Articles 3(b), 5(1) and 7 of Council
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Directive 80/68/EEC (5);
European Communities by order of the Bundesarbeitsgericht
(Federal Labour Court) of 27 June 2002, received at the Court
Registry on 12 November 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                     (d) by not subjecting urban waste-water from the
the case of Gérard Merida against Federal Republic of Germany,                      agglomeration of Vera to treatment which is more
represented by the Amt für Verteidigungslasten (Local Office                        stringent than that described in Article 4, as required
for Defence Expenditure) on the following question:                                 under Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/
                                                                                EEC ( 6);
Is Article 39 EC infringed by the fact that for the purposes of
calculating the basis of assessment of interim assistance in a
                                                                              (e)   by failing to declare the Rambla de Mojácar a
case arising under Paragraph 4(1)(b) of the collective agreement
                                                                                vulnerable area, contrary to Article 3(1), (2) and (4)
on social security account must be taken of the notional
                                                                                of Directive 91/676/EEC (7);
German tax on emoluments (second sentence of Para-
graph 4(3)(b) of that collective agreement) if the former
employee lives and is subject to tax abroad?
                                                                              the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under the abovementioned directives; and
                                                                        —     Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Action brought on 19 November 2002 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the
                        Kingdom of Spain
                          (Case C-416/02)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
                           (2003/C 31/09)
                                                                        —     Infringements (a) to (c) relate to the construction and
                                                                              running of an intensive pig farm situated in ‘El pago de la
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                     Media Legua’, in the municipal district of Vera, in the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-                    province of Almeria. The Spanish authorities admit that
vember 2002 by the Commission of the European Communi-                        that pig farm is illegal and is not covered by a municipal
ties, represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal                    licence, so that it must be deemed not to have the
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                           requisite authorisation required by Article 9 of Directive


title: Case T-575/14: Order of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Larymnis Larko v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Privatisation — Support measures for a debtor of the applicant — Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market — No interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/42

         Order of the General Court of 15 March 2016 — Larymnis Larko v Commission
   (Case T-575/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - State aid - Privatisation - Support measures for a debtor of the applicant - Decision declaring the aid to be incompatible with the internal market - No interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 156/56)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Elliniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki Larymnis Larko AE (Kallithea, Greece) (represented by: V. Koulouris, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar, acting as Agent, and by V. Chatzopoulos, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2014/539/EU of 27 March 2014 on the State aid SA.34572 (13/C) (ex 13/NN) implemented by Greece for Larko General Mining & Metallurgical Company SA (OJ 2014 L 254, p. 24).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Elliniki Metalleftiki kai Metallourgiki Larymnis Larko AE shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.


title: Case T-129/00: Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble Company against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market

text:
8.7.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 192/25
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:            Pleas in law and main arguments
— Annul Commission Decision 2000/128/EC of 11 May                        Trademark concerned:          Three dimensional trademark in
     1999 of 11 May 1999 concerning aid granted by Italy to                                            the form of tablets — Application
     promote employment published in Official Journal of the                                           No 949610
     European Communities L 42 of 15 February 2000;
                                                                         Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice
— In the alternative, annul Articles 1 and 2 of the operative                                          Agreement (in particular, washing
     part of the Decision, to the extent to which they do not                                          and bleaching preparations for
     exclude from the declaration of incompatibility with                                              laundry use; cleaning prep-
     the common market other types of financial aid for                                                arations, preparations for the
     employment which are shown in the present proceedings                                             washing of dishes, soaps, per-
     to be compatible with the common market; consequently,                                            fumery, essential oils, cosmetics,
     annul in respect of the same types of financial aid for                                           hair lotions, dentifrices)
     employment Article 3 of the operative part of the Decision
     in so far as it improperly requires recovery of the aid             Contested        decision     Refusal of registration by the
     already paid;                                                       before the Board of           examiner
                                                                         Appeal:
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                         Grounds for appeal:           Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                                                                                Regulation 40/94.
Contentions and main arguments adduced in support
The contentions and principal arguments are similar to those
relied on in Case T-124/00 FAID Federdistribuzione and
Others v Commission.
                                                                         Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble
                                                                         Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
                                                                                Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-129/00)
Action brought on 12 May 2000 by The Procter & Gamble                                            (2000/C 192/48)
Company against the Office for Harmonization in the
                         Internal Market
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                         (Case T-128/00)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
                         (2000/C 192/47)                                 Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 12 May 2000 by The Procter &
                                                                         Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and
                                                                         G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,
                   (Language of the case: English)                       Netherlands.
An action against the Office for Harmonization in the Internal           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 May 2000 by The Procter &                     — annul Decision R508/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
Gamble Company, represented by C.J.J.C. van Nispen and                       of the OHIM of 8 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the
G. Kuipers of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek, The Hague,                      Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
Netherlands.                                                                 Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — order the OHIM to pay the costs.
— annul Decision R506/1999-1 of the First Board of Appeal
     of the OHIM of 8 March 2000, in so far as it finds that the         Pleas in law and main arguments
     Mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in
     Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and                         Trademark condensed:          Three dimensional trademark in
                                                                                the form of tablets — Application
— order the OHIM to pay the costs.                                                                     No 949990
 ---pagebreak--- C 192/26              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          8.7.2000
Product or Service:           Products in Class 3 of the Nice           Pleas in law and main arguments
                              Agreement (in particular, washing
                              and bleaching preparations for            — Adipex Retard capsules are placed on the market solely on
                              laundry use; cleaning prep-                    the basis of a national Austrian authorisation, for the
                              arations, preparations for the                 grant of which the mutual recognition procedure under
                              washing of dishes, soaps, per-                 Chapter III of Directive 75/319 (1) was not applied. The
                              fumery, essential oils, cosmetics,             defendant was therefore not competent to adopt the
                              hair lotions, dentifrices)                     contested decision.
Contested        decision    Refusal of registration by the             — The Commission wrongly based its decision on Article 15a
before the Board of           examiner                                       of Directive 75/319 and the criteria in Article 5 of Directive
Appeal:                                                                      65/65 (2). In fact only Article 11 of Directive 65/65/EEC is
                                                                             material, however.
Grounds for appeal:          Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of
                              Regulation 40/94.                         — The conditions for withdrawal of authorisation are not
                                                                             satisfied. It has not been sufficiently established either that
                                                                             phentermin is harmful or that it lacks therapeutic effect if
                                                                             correctly used.
                                                                        (1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the
                                                                            approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
                                                                            administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products
                                                                            (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13).
                                                                        (2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
Action brought on 17 May 2000 by Gerot Pharmazeutika                        mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrat-
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-                            ive action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ, English
                           munities                                         Special Edition 1965-1966, p. 20).
                        (Case T-132/00)
                       (2000/C 192/49)
                 (Language of the case: German)                         Action brought on 22 May 2000 by Cambridge Healthcare
                                                                        Supplies Limited against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 May 2000 by Gerot Pharmazeu-                                            (Case T-137/00)
tika GmbH, of Vienna, represented by Dr Karl Grigkar,
Rechtsanwalt, Vienna.                                                                              (2000/C 192/50)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
— annul Commission Decision K (2000) 452 of 9 March
    2000 on withdrawal of authorisation of medicinal prod-              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    ucts for human use which contain the substance phen-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    termin, in particular with respect to the medicinal product         European Communities on 22 May 2000 by Cambridge
    Adipex Retard capsules authorised for the applicant; in             Healthcare Supplies Limited, represented by David Vaughan,
    eventu                                                              Q.C., Kelyn Bacon, Barrister, and Simon Davis, Solicitor,
                                                                        Clifford Chance, London.
— annul the Commission’s decision in so far as Article 1 in
    conjunction with Annex I thereof requires the Member                The applicant claims that the Court should:
    State Austria to withdraw the authorisation for the appli-
    cant’s medicinal product containing phentermin, namely              — annul Commission Decision C(2000)452, of 9 March
    Adipex Retard capsules;                                                  2000;
— order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.                    — order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of 24 March 1997 in the case of Verein zur Förderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. MVF Magazin-Verlag am Fleetrand Gesellschaft mbH (Case C-135/97)

text:
No C 166/ 10             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        31 . 5 . 97
Bologna, 2 . Ministero della Sanità, 3 . Minstero dell'Uni                   upon as against a national authority by the person
versità e della Ricerca Scientifica , 4 . Ministero del Tesoro,               dealing in such rights as a ground justifying treatment
on the following questions:                                                   of those transactions as taxable transactions ?
                                                                              If, again, that question is answered in the negative, an
'Must the provision of Directive 82/76/EEC (') providing                      answer to the following question is sought:
that the training of trainee medical specialists is to be
" subject to appropriate remuneration " be interpreted, in
so far as no specific provisions have been adopted by the               3 . Can the person dealing in those rights still claim a
Italian Republic in the prescribed terms, as having direct                    right to deduct on the basis of Article 17 ( 2 ) or
effect in favour of trainee medical specialists as against the                another provision of the Directive, that is to say, does
administrative authorities of the Italian Republic, and does                  the provision have direct effect even though the
it confer on trainee medical specialists the right to                         transaction does not give rise to any output tax ?
appropriate payment linked with all the training
undertaken in the departments entrusted with training by                (') ' 11 . The following types of transaction shall be exempt from
the State , with a corresponding obligation on those                               tax: ( l)The grant or assignment of rights covered by
administrative authorities, including the University of                            Article 1 , 4 or 5 of Law 1960 : 729 on Copyright in
Bologna , to pay such remuneration ?'                                              Literary and Artistic Works, but not ...'.
(') OJ No L 43 , 15 . 2 . 1982 , p . 21
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Oberlandesgericht Wien by order of that court of
                                                                        24 March 1997 in the case of Verein zur Forderung des
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                             freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v. MVF Magazin
Skatterattsnamnden by order of that body of 20 February                               Verlag am Fleetrand Gesellschaft mbH
  1997 in the case of Victoria Film A/S v. Riksskatteverket                                       ( Case C-135/97)
                          ( Case C-134/97                                                           ( 97/C 166/19 )
                            ( 97/C 166/ 18 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                        the European Communities by an order of the Oberlandes
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  gericht Wien ( Higher Regional Court, Vienna ) of 24 March
European Communities by an order of the                                 1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 April
Skatterattsnamnden ( Revenue Board ) of 20 February                     1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Verein zur
1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 April               Forderung des freien Wettbewerbs im Medienwesen v.
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Victoria Film             MVF Magazin-Verlag am Fleetrand Gesellschaft mbH on
A/S v. Riksskatteverket on the following questions:                     the following question :
                                                                        'Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
1 . Does Article 28 ( 3 ) ( b ) of the Sixth VAT Directive in           precluding application of legislation of Member State A
     conjunction with point 2 of Annex F to the Directive,              prohibiting an undertaking established in Member State B
     and having regard to the terms of Annex XV, IX                     from selling in Member State A a periodically published
     Taxation, point 2 aa, of the Treaty of Accession                   magazine produced in Member State B if it contains prize
     between the Member States of the European Union                    puzzles or competitions which are lawfully organized in
     and Sweden concerning Sweden's accession to the                    Member State B ?'
     European Union, mean that Sweden may have
     provisions in its national legislation having the tenor
     of Article 11 ( 1 ) of Title 3 of the Value Added Tax
     Law as worded until 31 December 1996 (')?
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
     If the answer to that question is in the negative, an
                                                                        Tribunal, Manchester, by direction of that court of 2 April
     answer to the following question is sought.
                                                                        1997, in the case of Norbury Developments Ltd against
                                                                                the Commissioners of Customs and Excise
2 . Does the fact that Article 28 ( 3 ) ( b ) does not allow                                      ( Case C-136/97 )
     national legislation to provide for an exemption from                                          ( 97/C 166/20 )
     tax liability for the transactions referred to in
     Question 1 mean that this provision, Article 6 ( 1 ) or
     any other provision of the Sixth Directive has so-called           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     direct effect in this regard and can therefore be relied           European Communities by direction of the VAT and


title: Case C-405/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bruchsal — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against QB (*) (Protection of the environment — Regulations (EC) Nos 1013/2006 and 1418/2007 — Control of shipments of waste — Prohibition on the shipment of spent catalysts to Lebanon)

text:
                  28.1.2012

                  EN

                  Official Journal of the European Union

                  C 25/14

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 November 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Bruchsal — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against  QB (*1)

         (Case C-405/10) (1)

         (Protection of the environment - Regulations (EC) Nos 1013/2006 and 1418/2007 - Control of shipments of waste - Prohibition on the shipment of spent catalysts to Lebanon)
         (2012/C 25/22)
         Language of the case: German

            Referring court

         Amtsgericht Bruchsal

            Party in the main proceedings

          QB (*1)

            Re:

         Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Bruchsal — Interpretation of Article 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste (OJ 2006 L 190, p. 1), read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply (OJ 2007 L 316, p. 6) — Prohibition on the shipment of waste which falls within waste category B 1120 (catalysts) to Lebanon

            Operative part of the judgment

         Articles 36(1)(f) and 37 of Regulation (EC) No 1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on shipments of waste, read in conjunction with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/2007 of 29 November 2007 concerning the export for recovery of certain waste listed in Annex III or IIIA to Regulation No 1013/2006 to certain countries to which the OECD Decision on the control of transboundary movements of wastes does not apply, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 740/2008 of 29 July 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that the export from the European Union to Lebanon of waste, intended for recovery, which falls within category B1120 in List B in Part 1 of Annex V to Regulation No 1013/2006 is prohibited.

            (*1)  Information erased or replaced within the framework of protection of personal data and/or confidentiality.

            (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010.


title: Case C-203/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 28 April 2004 in the case Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG against Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 28 April 2004 in the case Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG against Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH
   (Case C-203/04)
   (2004/C 190/08)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Frankfurt am Main Regional Court, Germany), of 28 April 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 7 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Gebrüder Stolle GmbH & Co. KG against Heidegold Geflügelspezialitäten GmbH.
   The Landgericht Frankfurt am Main asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:
   Is Article 10(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91 of 5 June 1991 (marketing standards for poultry) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that on labelling within the meaning of Article 1(3)(a) of Directive 79/112/EEC the legend ‘reared under controlled conditions’ indicates a type of farming within the meaning of Article 10(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1538/91?

      (1)  OJ L 143, 7.6.1991, p. 11.


title: Case C-343/12: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — Euronics Belgium CVBA v Kamera Express BV, Kamera Express Belgium BVBA (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 2005/29/EC — National legislation laying down a general prohibition of offering for sale or selling goods at a loss)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/5

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent — Belgium) — Euronics Belgium CVBA v Kamera Express BV, Kamera Express Belgium BVBA
   (Case C-343/12) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 2005/29/EC - National legislation laying down a general prohibition of offering for sale or selling goods at a loss)
   2013/C 129/09
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Euronics Belgium CVBA

      Defendants: Kamera Express BV, Kamera Express Belgium BVBA

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van Koophandel te Gent — Belgium — Interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — National legislation laying down a general prohibition of sales at a loss, without exception, and intended to protect, inter alia, the interests of consumers — Compatibility with Directive 2005/29

      Operative part of the order

   Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a general prohibition of offering for sale or selling at a loss in so far as that provision pursues objectives relating to consumer protection.

      (1)  OJ C 303, 6.10.2012.


title: Case C-356/14: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Insufficiently detailed information as regards the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/14

      Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft. v Földművelésügyi Miniszter
      (Case C-356/14) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Articles 53(2) and 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Insufficiently detailed information as regards the factual and legislative context of the dispute in the main proceedings - Manifest inadmissibility)
      (2015/C 016/21)
      Language of the case: Hungarian

         Referring court

      Budapest Környéki Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Hunland-Trade Mezőgazdasági Termelő és Kereskedelmi Kft.

         Defendant: Földművelésügyi Miniszter

         Operative part of the order

      The request for a preliminary ruling from the Budapest környéki közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság (Hungary), made by decision of 16 June 2014, in Case C-356/14, is manifestly inadmissible.

         (1)  OJ C 329, 22.9.2014.


title: Case C-516/11 P: Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV v European Commission

text:
               4.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/12

         Order of the President of the Court of 24 April 2012 — ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV v European Commission
   (Case C-516/11 P) (1)

   2012/C 235/28
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case C-203/06: Action brought on  4 May 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/28

         Action brought on 4 May 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-203/06)
   (2006/C 143/52)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by K. Walkerová and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the Council Directive of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, (1) or in any event by failing to notify them to the Commission, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 44 of that directive;

               —

               order the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 30 April 2004.

      (1)  Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1.


title: Action brought on 13 March 1996 by Bernard Connolly against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-34/96)

text:
No C 133/32            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4 . 5 . 96
 1 , in adopting its decision, the Commission breached the              represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul van
     essential procedural requirements of the EC Treaty, of             Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
     the legislation implementing it and of the fundamental             in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
     rules of procedure provided for therein, in that:                  Fort Rheinsheim .
     — it did not declare the aids granted to the Crédit
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
         Lyonnais in 1994 and 1995 illegal for want of
         notification,                                                  — annul the decision of the Disciplinary Board of
     — the summary nature of the advance notice given by it                 7 December 1 995 ,
         was such that third parties were not given an
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay all of the costs .
         opportunity to intervene, as appropriate, in the
         procedure for the examination of those aids;                   Pleas in law and main arguments
2 , the Commission infringed Articles 92 and 93 of the EC               The applicant, who is already contesting the decision
     Treaty and the Community guidelines on State aid for               suspending him under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations
     rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty issued for          and the decision to bring the matter before the Disciplinary
     the implementation thereof, in that:                               Board ( ! ), is applying in the present case for annulment of
     — it declared the aid compatible with the common                   the opinion delivered by the Board in the context of the
         market, notwithstanding that that aid does not                 disciplinary proceedings initiated on 6 September 1995 .
         contribute to the development of any sector of
         activity,                                                      In support of his application, he relies on the following
                                                                        pleas:
     — it    did   not    take   the    common       interest  into
         consideration,                                                 1 , the report of the appointing authority, whereby the
                                                                            matter was brought before the Disciplinary Board
     — it based its analysis of the compatibility of the aid                pursuant to Article 1 of Annex IX to the Staff
         under Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) on the cost of that aid to the         Regulations, is improper, since it characterizes, that is to
         State and not on the amount of aid actually received               say, prejudges, the conduct alleged against the applicant,
         by the Crédit Lyonnais,                                            alleges as facts matters which have not been proven,
     — it did not seek any sound independent expert's                       contains allegations of fact which are manifestly
         report for the purposes of quantifying the amount of               incorrect, fails properly to provide a clear indication of
         the aid,                                                           the matters complained of and the circumstances in
                                                                            which they were allegedly committed, makes findings of
     — it committed a manifest error of assessment in                       fact in respect of matters on which the applicant has not
         quantifying the amount of the aid in a sum exceeding               been heard and, lastly, expatiates on the complaints set
         FF 32 billion, when that sum constitutes in itself the             out in the decision of 6 September 1995 ;
         largest sum ever granted by way of State aid,
                                                                        2 , the chairman of the Disciplinary Board did not appoint
     — it failed properly to assess the proportionality of the              one of its members to prepare a general report on the
         aid to the cost and advantages arising from the                    matter ;
         recovery of the Crédit Lyonnais,
                                                                        3 , the applicant was not advised of the hearing of witnesses
     — it declared the aid compatible notwithstanding that                  and did not receive the minutes of that hearing in good
         no restructuring plan was provided and the measures                time ;
         which the Commission required the Crédit Lyonnais
         to take cannot in any way be described as                     4 , the chairman took part in the deliberations of the
                                                                            Disciplinary Board;
         restructuring measures,
                                                                        5 , the opinion disregards the limits on the jurisdiction of
     — it did not propose any adequate counter-measures to
                                                                            the Disciplinary Board, breaches the right to a fair
         remedy the serious distortion of competition
                                                                            hearing and ignores the principle that proceedings
         resulting from the aid .
                                                                            should be conducted inter partes;
                                                                       6 , the opinion is insufficiently reasoned and breaches the
                                                                            conditions governing the application of Articles 11 , 12
                                                                            and 17 of the Staff Regulations, alternatively, is based
Action brought on 13 March 1996 by Bernard Connolly                         on an unlawful interpretation of those provisions;
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   7, in the alternative, the disciplinary measure proposed
                        ( Case T-34/96 )                                    by the Disciplinary Board breaches the principle of
                          ( 96/C 133/66 )                                   proportionality and is vitiated by a manifest error of
                                                                            assessment ;
                (Language of the case: French)                          8 , the proceedings are characterized in their entirety by a
                                                                            misuse of powers.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      (') Case T-203/95 ( OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p. 16 ).
Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1 996
by Bernard Connolly, residing at Everberg ( Belgium ),


title: Case T-218/16: Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Mühlbauer Technology v EUIPO (Magicrown) (EU trade mark — Application for EU word mark Magicrown — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/21

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 May 2017 — Mühlbauer Technology v EUIPO (Magicrown)
   (Case T-218/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark Magicrown - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 221/28)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Mühlbauer Technology GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Zintler and A. Stolz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 March 2016 (Case R 1213/2015-4) concerning and application for registration of word sign Magicrown as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mühlbauer Technology GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 27.6.2016.


title: Case C-377/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — STEKO Industriemontage GmbH v Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim (Corporation tax — Transitional provisions — Deduction of the depreciation of holdings in non-resident companies)

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 January 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — STEKO Industriemontage GmbH v Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim
   (Case C-377/07) (1)

   (Corporation tax - Transitional provisions - Deduction of the depreciation of holdings in non-resident companies)
   (2009/C 69/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bundesfinanzhof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: STEKO Industriemontage GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 56 EC — Corporation tax — Transitional provisions for the year 2001 prohibiting a company from deducting the depreciation in value of its foreign shareholdings
   Operative part of the judgment
   In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which a resident capital company has a holding of less than 10 % in another capital company, Article 56 EC must be interpreted as precluding a prohibition on the deduction of reductions in profit in connection with such a holding which enters into force earlier with regard to a holding in a non-resident company than with regard to a holding in a resident company.

      (1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.


title: Case T-150/13: Action brought on 11 March 2013 — Ziegler Relocation v Commission

text:
               25.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 147/22

         Action brought on 11 March 2013 — Ziegler Relocation v Commission
   (Case T-150/13)
   2013/C 147/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Ziegler Relocation SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: J.-F. Bellis, M. Favart and A. Bailleux, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               join the present action to Case T-539/12;

               —

               declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               hold that the European Union has incurred non-contractual liability as regards the applicant;

               —

               order the European Union to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 112 872,50 per year from 11 March 2008, together with interest until payment in full;

               —

               order the European Union to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The damage in respect of which the applicant seeks compensation from the European Union concerns the loss of earnings which it claims to have suffered since the adoption of the Commission’s decision of 11 March 2008 in Case COMP/38.543 — International removal services as a result of the practice of European Union officials to request cover quotes in the context of removals the costs of which are reimbursed in accordance with the status of European Union officials has not ceased. The applicant’s refusal to respond favourably to such requests has the effect of removing it from the markets concerned, to the extent that it no longer supplies removal services to more than a very limited number of officials of the European institutions. It is a failure on the part of the European Union to fulfil its duty of care which is the cause of the loss thus suffered by the applicant.


title: Case T-766/15: Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — Labeyrie v EUIPO — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background) (EU trade mark — Revocation proceedings — EU figurative mark representing a sowing of golden fish on a blue background — Declaration of revocation — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form that differs in elements does not alter the distinctive character)

text:
               18.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 121/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2017 — Labeyrie v EUIPO — Delpeyrat (Representation of a sowing of golden fish on a blue background)
   (Case T-766/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU figurative mark representing a sowing of golden fish on a blue background - Declaration of revocation - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form that differs in elements does not alter the distinctive character))
   (2017/C 121/40)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Labeyrie (Saint-Geours-de-Maremne, France) (represented by: A. Lecomte, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Delpeyrat (Saint-Pierre-du-Mont, France) (represented by: J. Ennochi, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 15 October 2015 (Case R 2693/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between Depeyrat and Labeyrie.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Labeyrie to bear its own costs as well as those incurred by EUIPO;

               3.

               Orders Delpeyrat to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 78, 29.2.2016.


title: Case F-41/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 September 2012 — Bermejo Garde v EESC (Staff cases — Officials — Psychological harassment — Request for assistance — Right of disclosure — Reassignment — Interests of the service)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/22

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 September 2012 — Bermejo Garde v EESC
   (Case F-41/10) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Psychological harassment - Request for assistance - Right of disclosure - Reassignment - Interests of the service)
   2012/C 343/36
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Moises Bermejo Garde (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (represented by: M. Echevarría Viñuela, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of a number of decisions terminating the applicant’s duties as Head of the Legal Service Unit with immediate effect, reassigning him to the Directorate for Logistics and rejecting his formal request for assistance, and application for damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010, p. 55.


title: Case C-59/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — The Shirtmakers BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Community Customs Code — Article 32(1)(e)(i) — Customs value — Transaction value — Determination — Concept of ‘cost of transport’)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/12

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 11 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — The Shirtmakers BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-59/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Customs union - Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 - Community Customs Code - Article 32(1)(e)(i) - Customs value - Transaction value - Determination - Concept of ‘cost of transport’))
   (2017/C 239/15)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Shirtmakers BV

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 32(1)(e)(i) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘cost of transport’, within the meaning of that provision, includes the supplement charged by the forwarding agent to the importer, corresponding to that agent’s profit margin and costs, in respect of the service which it provided in organising the transport of the imported goods to the customs territory of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 25.4.2016.


title: Case C-397/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 3 July 2017 — Profit Europe NV v Belgische Staat

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 3 July 2017 — Profit Europe NV v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-397/17)
   (2017/C 300/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Profit Europe NV

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must [CN] subheading 7307 19 10 (1) be interpreted as including fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron which have the characteristics of the fittings at issue in the main proceedings, if it appears from their objective characteristics that their material is essentially different from malleable cast iron because the malleability of spheroidal graphite cast iron does not result from appropriate heat treatment and because the graphite in spheroidal graphite cast iron has a different shape to the graphite in malleable cast iron, namely, that of spheroidal graphite instead of temper carbon?

               2.

               Must [CN] subheading 7307 11 00 1 be interpreted as including fittings of spheroidal graphite cast iron which have the characteristics of the fittings at issue in the main proceedings, if the objective characteristics of spheroidal graphite cast iron show that it substantially corresponds to the objective characteristics of non-malleable cast iron?

               3.

               Must the CN Explanatory Note to subheading 7307 19 10, which provides that malleable cast iron includes spheroidal graphite cast iron, be disregarded to the extent to which it provides that malleable cast iron includes spheroidal graphite cast iron, if it is established that spheroidal graphite cast iron is not malleable cast iron?

      (1)  See Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1).


title: Case C-141/02 P: Appeal brought on 15 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 30 January 2002 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) in Case T-54/99 max.mobil Telekommunikation Service GmbH v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands

text:
13.7.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 169/15
Court Registry on 15 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling                 consideration of the procured goods and services to the
in the case of Finanzamt Gummersbach against Gerhard                      subsequently founded limited company and, from the outset,
Bockemühl on the following questions:                                     did not intend to carry out any other output transactions, and
                                                                          if, in the Member State concerned, a transfer of a totality of
                                                                          assets is not deemed to be a supply of goods or services (first
1.    Is it necessary under Article 18(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/         sentence of Article 5(8) and Article 6(5) of the Sixth Council
      EEC (1) for a person to whom services are supplied, who             Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
      is liable to pay tax under Article 21(1) of Directive 77/           of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      388/EEC and who has been charged to tax as such, to be              Common system of value added tax) (1)?
      in possession of an invoice issued in accordance with
      Article 22(3) of Directive 77/388/EEC in order to exercise
      his right to deduct input tax?                                      (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
2.    If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, what
      details must the invoice contain? Is it detrimental if,
      instead of the supply of staff, the work carried out using
      that staff is given as the service supplied?
3.    What would be the consequences in law of inextinguish-              Appeal brought on 15 April 2002 by the Commission of
      able doubts that the person issuing the invoice supplied            the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
      the service invoiced?                                               ed on 30 January 2002 by the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended
                                                                          Composition) in Case T-54/99 max.mobil Telekommuni-
                                                                          kation Service GmbH v Commission of the European
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                          Communities, supported by the Kingdom of the Nether-
                                                                                lands
                                                                                (Case C-141/02 P)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/28)
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 January 2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                          by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
hof by order of that Court of 23 January 2002 in the case                 (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), in Case T-54/99
of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against Faxworld                      max.mobil Telekommunikation Service GmbH v Commission
Vorgründungsgesellschaft Peter Hünninghausen und
                                                                          of the European Communities(1), supported by the Kingdom
                       Wolfgang Klein GbR                                 of the Netherlands, was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities on 15 April 2002 by the
                          (Case C-137/02)                                 Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Walter Mölls and Klaus Wiedner, of the Commission’s Legal
                                                                          Service, with an address for service at the office of Luis Escobar
                          (2002/C 169/27)                                 Guerrero, also of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, C 254,
                                                                          Luxembourg.
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                      —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
(Federal Finance Court) of 23 January 2002, received at the                     the European Communities of 30 January 2002 in Case
Court Registry on 12 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                    T-54/99 (max.mobil v Commission) in so far as it
the case of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against                            declares admissible the action for annulment brought by
Faxworld Vorgründungsgesellschaft Peter Hünninghausen und                       max.mobil against the Commission’s letter of 11 Decem-
Wolfgang Klein GbR on the following question:                                   ber 1998;
                                                                          —     dismiss as inadmissible the action for annulment brought
Is a partnership which has been established for the sole purpose                by max.mobil against the Commission’s letter of
of forming a company limited by shares (Aktiengesellschaft)                     11 December 1998;
entitled to deduct the value added tax paid on goods and
services procured by it, if, after that company has been                  —     order max.mobil to pay the costs of the proceedings
formed, that partnership effects by formal act a transfer for                   before the Court of Justice.
 ---pagebreak--- C 169/16                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.7.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) did not
                                                                              infringe Article 7 (1) (c) of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                              No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community
The judgment of the Court of First Instance infringed                         trade mark (2) in adopting its decision of 28 February
Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC), as well                2000 (Case R 423/1999-2) with the exception as regards
as the ‘right to sound administration’ and the Commission’s                   goods in the categories ‘manuals and publications’;
‘general duty of supervision’, in so far as it inferred that
individuals have a right to have their complaint under                  2.    for the rest, annul the decision of the Second Board of
Article 90 of the EC Treaty (now Article 86 EC) dealt with and                Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal
a corresponding right of action. Moreover, it erroneously                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2000
inferred that complaints by individuals in the context of                     (Case R 423/1999-2);
Article 90 of the EC Treaty are dismissed by a decision
addressed to the complainant. In that connection the Court of           3.    order the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market
First Instance has at any rate infringed Article 90(3). If so, and            (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs both at first
in so far as it based its conclusions thereon it has also infringed           instance and on appeal.
the ‘right to sound administration’ and/or the ‘general duty of
supervision’. Finally, the Court infringed Article 173(4) of the
EC Treaty (now Article 230(4) EC) by assuming (in the
alternative) that max.mobil is individually concerned by the
contested letter.                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
(1) Case T-54/99 max.mobil Telekommunikation Service GmbH v
                                                                        The Appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance
    Commission [2002] ECR II-0000.                                      misinterpreted Article 7 (1) (c) of Regulation 40/94 when it
                                                                        held that the aforementioned article prevents the signs or
                                                                        indications referred to in that provision from being reserved
                                                                        to one undertaking alone because they have been registered as
                                                                        a mark and that the provision thus pursues an aim which is in
                                                                        the public interest, namely that such signs or indications may
                                                                        be freely used by all.
Appeal brought on 25 April 2002 by Streamserve Inc.                     In the Appellant’s view the criteria applied by the Court of
against the judgment delivered on 27 February 2002 by                   First Instance in the application of Article 7 (1) (c) to the facts
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                    of the case are too severe.
the European Communities in case T-106/00 (1) between
Streamserve Inc. and the Office for Harmonization in the
    Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                    (1) OJ C 176, 24.6.2000, p. 29.
                                                                        (2) OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1.
                         (Case C-150/02 P)
                          (2002/C 169/29)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 February                 Action brought on 26 April 2002 by the Commission
2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance               of the European Communities against the Republic of
of the European Communities in case T-106/00 between                                                  Austria
Streamserve Inc. and the Office for Harmonization in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), was
                                                                                (Case C-155/02)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 25 April 2002 by Streamserve Inc., established in
Raleigh, North Carolina (United States of America), represented                                 (2002/C 169/30)
by J. Kääriäinen and R. Berzelius, lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.
                                                                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 April
                                                                        2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
1.    annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of              represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,
      27 February 2002 in case T-106/00, Streamserve Inc. v.            with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis
      OHIM (‘STREAMSERVE’), in so far as it found that the              Escobar Guerrero, of its Legal Service, at Wagner Centre C 254,
      Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization            Kirchberg, Luxembourg.


title: Case T-155/05: Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Robert Steinmetz against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/26

         Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Robert Steinmetz against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-155/05)
   (2005/C 155/51)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 2005 by Robert Steinmetz, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Joëlle Choucroun, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the Commission's decision dated 10 January 2005 in reply to the applicant's complaints R/376/04 of 29 April 2004 and R/857/04 of 20 August 2004;

               2.

               order the Commission to repay EUR 26.19 to the applicant;

               3.

               award the applicant token compensation of one euro for the non-material damage suffered as a result of the contested decision;

               4.

               order the Commission to pay the entire costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in the present case objects to the rejection by the Appointing Authority of his claim for settlement of mission expenses and for repayment of EUR 26.19 unduly deducted from his salary of March 2005. In that context, he also objects to the refusal to grant his request for assistance, submitted under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.
   It is recalled in that regard that, on 29 July 2003, the applicant participated in Brussels in the proceedings of a competition selection board of which he was chairman. He travelled in a hire vehicle placed at his disposal by the Commission. On his return to Luxembourg, he filled up with fuel and it is specifically an alleged error on the sales receipt, in respect of the time printed on that receipt, which has given rise to the present action.
   In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

               —

               infringement of Articles 24, 62, 64 and 71 of the Staff Regulations, of Article 11 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and of the provisions of the ‘Guide to missions’ (Commission Decision of 23 March 2003) and of the ‘Guide à destination des liquidateurs des missions’ (Guide for officials reponsible for calculating and settling mission expenses) of March 2003;

               —

               breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations;

               —

               the existence in this case of manifest errors of assessment.


title: Case C-597/10: Action brought on 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/20

         Action brought on 16 December 2010 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-597/10)
   2011/C 55/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: V. Peere and I. Hadjiyannis, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 (1) on the assessment and management of flood risks, which aims to reduce damage to human health, the environment, cultural heritage and economic activity associated with floods in the Community, or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, France has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for the transposition of Directive 2007/60/EC expired on 25 November 2009. On the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet taken all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, in any event, it had not notified the Commission thereof.

      (1)  Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks (OJ 2007 L 288, p. 27).


title: Case C-44/10: Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/31

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2010 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-44/10) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/51
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.04.2010.


title: Case T-237/15: Action brought on 15 May 2015 — Łabowicz v. OHIM — Pure Fishing (NANO)

text:
               13.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/22

         Action brought on 15 May 2015 — Łabowicz v. OHIM — Pure Fishing (NANO)
   (Case T-237/15)
   (2015/C 228/27)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Edward Łabowicz (Kłodzko, Poland) (represented by: M. Żygadło, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pure Fishing, Inc. (Spirit Lake, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘NANO’– Community trade mark No 6 649 818

      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 2426/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Articles 76 and 83 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Breach of Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning, respectively, the right to a fair trial and the prohibition of discrimination.


title: Case F-18/08: Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Ritto v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/51

         Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Ritto v Commission
   (Case F-18/08)
   (2008/C 92/106)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Luis Ritto (Rome, Italy) (represented by: J. Deliens and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the appointing authority's decision of 14 May 2007 cancelling the applicant's household allowance as from 1 September 2001 and claiming recovery of the sums overpaid since that date, and annulment of all the decisions stemming from it.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the appointing authority's decision of 14 May 2007 and all decisions stemming from it;

               —

               annul as far as necessary the appointing authority's decision rejecting the applicant's complaint;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Case T-453/13: Action brought on 26 August 2013 — Klaes v OHIM — Klaes Kunststoffe (Klaes)

text:
               26.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/31

         Action brought on 26 August 2013 — Klaes v OHIM — Klaes Kunststoffe (Klaes)
   (Case T-453/13)
   2013/C 313/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Horst Klaes GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, Germany) (represented by: B. Dix, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH (Neuenrade, 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 of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1206/2012-1) and reject the opposition against the applicant’s Community trade mark application (No 9545096).

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Klaes’ for goods in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 545 096

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Klaes Kunststoffe GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark in blue ‘Klaes’ for services in Class 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009


title: Case T-767/16: Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Nanogate v EUIPO (metals)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/24

         Action brought on 7 November 2016 — Nanogate v EUIPO (metals)
   (Case T-767/16)
   (2016/C 475/35)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Nanogate AG (Quierschied, Germany) (represented by: A. Theis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Trade mark at issue: EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘metals’ — Application No 14 259 981

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 29 August 2016 in Case R 2361/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-437/17: Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Oy Karl Fazer v EUIPO — Kraft Foods Belgium Intellectual Property (MIGNON)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/34

         Action brought on 14 July 2017 — Oy Karl Fazer v EUIPO — Kraft Foods Belgium Intellectual Property (MIGNON)
   (Case T-437/17)
   (2017/C 300/42)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Oy Karl Fazer Ab (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: L. Laaksonen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft Foods Belgium Intellectual Property (Halle, Belgium)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘MIGNON’ — Application for registration No 10 995 892

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 24 April 2017 in Case R 1859/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               allow the trademark to be registered for all applied goods.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8 (1) (b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-468/15 P: Appeal brought on 3 September 2015 by PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-26/12: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/27

         Appeal brought on 3 September 2015 by PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 25 June 2015 in Case T-26/12: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-468/15 P)
   (2015/C 354/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) (represented by: D. Luff, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Sasol Olefins & Surfactants GmbH, Sasol Germany GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare this appeal admissible and well founded;

               —

               set aside the Judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 25 June 2015 in case PT Perindustrian dan Perdagangan Musim Semi Mas (PT Musim Mas) v Council of the European Union, T-26/12;

               —

               give final judgment, upholding PT Musim Mas’ claims before the General Court and, accordingly, annul the antidumping duty imposed on the Appellant under Council Implementing Regulation (EC) No 1138/2011 (1) of 8 November 2011 imposing the definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1241/2012 (2) of 11 December 2012 amending Implementing Regulation No 1138/2011,

               —

               order the Council and the interveners, in addition to paying their own costs, to bear all costs occasioned to the Appellants in the course of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that the contested judgment should be set aside on the four grounds of appeal summarized below.
   Firstly, the General Court infringed Article 2(10)(i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 (the ‘Basic Regulation’) by wrongly applying the single economic entity (‘SEE’) concept and concluding that the Appellant and ICOFS do not form a SEE.
   Secondly, the General Court infringed Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously ruling that the Council sufficiently demonstrated that the functions carried out by ICOFS were similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. The General Court carried out an insufficient and discriminatory reasoning on the basis of the evidence available.
   Thirdly, the General Court infringed the first subparagraph of Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation by erroneously ruling that the Council did not unduly affect the symmetry between the normal value and the export price.
   Fourthly, the General Court misapplied the principle of good administration by erroneously accepting that the Council used only the Council’s evidence while ignoring relevant evidence and information presented before it by the Appellant throughout the anti-dumping investigation.

      (1)  OJ 2011 L 293, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2012 L 352, p. 1.


title: Case T-459/11: Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Barloworld v Commission

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/83

         Order of the General Court of 10 June 2013 — Barloworld v Commission
   (Case T-459/11) (1)

   2013/C 225/189
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 15.10.2011.


title: Case T-27/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Elan v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery from the beneficiary — Application for stay of execution — Lack of urgency)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/21

         Order of the President of the General Court of 11 March 2013 — Elan v Commission
   (Case T-27/13 R)
   (Interim measures - State aid - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the internal market and ordering its recovery from the beneficiary - Application for stay of execution - Lack of urgency)
   2013/C 129/42
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Parties

      Applicant: Elan, proizvodnja športnih izdelkov, d.o.o. (Begunje na Gorenjskem, Slovenia) (represented by: P. Pensa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: É. Gippini Fournier, T. Maxian Rusche and M. Kocjan, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2012) 6345 final of 19 September 2012 on the measures taken in favour of the group Elan d.o.o. (SA.26379 (C 13/2010) (ex NN 17/2010))

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is rejected.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.