title: Case T-255/15: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Almaz-Antey Air and Space Defence v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine — Freezing of funds — Legal person supporting, materially or financially, actions which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine — Proportionality — Obligation to state reasons — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Fundamental rights — Manifest error of assessment)

text:
               13.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/23

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Almaz-Antey Air and Space Defence v Council
   (Case T-255/15) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Freezing of funds - Legal person supporting, materially or financially, actions which undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Fundamental rights - Manifest error of assessment))
   (2017/C 078/31)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp., formerly OAO Concern PVO Almaz-Antey (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: A. Haak, C. Stumpf, M. Brüggemann and B. Thiemann, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by N. Rouam and J.-P. Hix, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application, based on Article 263 TFEU, for annulment of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/432 of 13 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 47), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/427 of 13 March 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 70, p. 1), Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1524 of 14 September 2015 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 157), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1514 of 14 September 2015, implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2015 L 239, p. 30), Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/359 of 10 March 2016 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 67, p. 37), Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/353 of 10 March 2016 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2016 L 67, p. 1) and the Council’s letter of 31 July 2015, in so far as those measures concern the applicant and retain it on the list of entities subject to restrictive measures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Joint-Stock Company ‘Almaz-Antey’ Air and Space Defence Corp. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 11 February 2004 in Case T-259/01: Nutrinveste — Comércio Internacional, SA, v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/40

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   11 February 2004
   in Case T-259/01: Nutrinveste — Comércio Internacional, SA, v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 - Food aid - Transfer of the burden of risk - Deduction from payments)
   (2004/C 94/115)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   In Case T-259/01, Nutrinveste - Comércio Internacional, SA, established in Algés (Portugal), represented by A. Vasconcelos, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Berscheid and A. Alves Vieira), with an address for service in Luxembourg: Application for an order for payment by the Commission of the sum of EUR 61 226 in respect of a supply of food aid, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the application;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 17 of 19.01.2002.


No C 269/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 9 . 96
        Removal from the register of Case C-5/96 ( 1 )                       Removal from the register of Case C-413/93 ( )
                           ( 96/C 269/46 )                                                        ( 96/C 269/50 )
By order of 23 May 1996 , the President of the Court of                By order of 19 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-5/96 : Commission of the                   from the register of Case C-413/93 ( Request for a
European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                             preliminary ruling from the Pretura circondariale di
                                                                       Trapani ): Criminal proceedings against Matteo Peralta .
(') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 300 , 6 . 11 . 1993 .
      Removal from the register of Case C-387/95 (')
                           ( 96/C 269/47 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C-121 /94 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/51 )
By order of 3 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 28 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
register of Case C-387/95 : Commission of the European                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Communities v. Ireland .                                               from the register of Case C-121 /94 ( Request for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht ): Domingo
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .                                        Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-394/95 (')
                            ( 96/C 269/48 )
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-385/95 ( )
By order of 3 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice                                   ( 96/C 269/52 )
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-394/95 : Commission of the European                 By order of 28 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
Communities v. Ireland .                                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-385/95 : Commission of the
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .                                        European Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/96 ( )
                            ( 96/C 269/49 )
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-393/95 ( )
 By order of 5 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice                                   ( 96/C 269/53 )
 of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-40/96 : Commission of the European                   By order of 9 July 1 996 , the President of the Court of Justice
 Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-393/95 : Commission of the European
 (') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .                                       Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
                                                                        (>) OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


               20.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/12

         Action brought on 8 April 2013 by DB Schenker against the EFTA Surveillance Authority
   (Case E-5/13)
   2013/C 174/08
   An action against the EFTA Surveillance Authority was brought before the EFTA Court on 8 April 2013 by Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS (collectively ‘DB Schenker’), represented by Jon Midthjell, advokat, Advokatfirmaet Midthjell AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway.
   The applicants request the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               annul ESA’s decision of 25 January 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 (DB Schenker) in so far as it refuses full or partial access under Article 3(a) RAD 2012 and Articles 4(4) and 4(6) RAD 2012 to documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system) and refuses to grant access to the complete version of ESA Decision No 321/10/COL;

               2.

               annul ESA’s decision of 18 February 2013 in ESA Case No 73075 (DB Schenker) in so far as it refuses full or partial access under Articles 4(4) and 4(6) RAD 2012 to documents belonging to the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system);

               3.

               order ESA (and any intervener) to bear the costs.

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

               —

               The applicants, Schenker North AB, Schenker Privpak AB and Schenker Privpak AS, are part of the DB Schenker group, an international freight forwarding and logistic group. Schenker North AB runs the group’s business operations in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, including the subsidiaries Schenker Privpak AS and Schenker Privpak AB.

               —

               The applicants submitted a confirmatory application with ESA, on 14 January 2013, for access to documents in the case files that led to ESA Decision No 321/10/COL (Norway Post — loyalty/discount system) of 14 July 2010. On 25 January 2013 and 18 February 2013, ESA decided on the access request under its new rules on public access to documents (RAD 2012), enacted by way of ESA Decision No 300/12/COL on 5 September 2012. The applicants seek to annul those decisions under Article 36 SCA in so far as they deny full or partial access to the documents it requested.

         The applicants claim that the EFTA Surveillance Authority has:

               —

               infringed the public right of access to documents in Article 2(1) RAD 2012 and the duty to state reasons, cf. Article 16 SCA with regards to documents denied under Article 3(a) RAD 2012,

               —

               infringed the public right of access to documents in Article 2(1) RAD 2012 with regard to documents refused access to, in full or in part, under Article 4(6) RAD 2012, and

               —

               infringed the public right of access to documents in Article 2(1) RAD 2012 and the duty to state reasons, cf. Article 16 SCA with regard to documents refused access to, in full or in part, under Article 4(4) RAD 2012.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 4 May 1998 in Case T-84/97: Bureau Européen des Unions de Consommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European Communities (Anti-dumping procedure - Interested party - Refusal - Action for annulment - Confirmatory act - Time-limit - Inadmissibility)

text:
C 234/26               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.7.98
     would have been entitled if he had been reinstated on           2. Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
     1 January 1995 and the rights to which he is in fact
     entitled;                                                       (1) OJ C 94 of 22.3.1997.
7. Orders that the sums due under point 6 above are to
     bear interest at the rate of 4.5 % from the date of their
     becoming payable;
8. Orders, before ruling on the amount of the                             ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     compensation payable by the defendant to the                                           of 4 May 1998
     applicant:
                                                                     in Case T-84/97: Bureau EuropeÂen des Unions de
     a) that the parties are to submit to the Court, within          Consommateurs (BEUC) v Commission of the European
         three months after delivery of the present                                         Communities (1)
         judgment, the terms agreed by them in relation,             (Anti-dumping procedure Ð Interested party Ð Refusal Ð
         first, to the quantified amount of compensation             Action for annulment Ð Confirmatory act Ð Time-limit
         thus payable to the applicant and, second, in                                     Ð Inadmissibility)
         respect of the re-establishment of his pension
                                                                                (98/C 234/51)
         rights and the interest due in that regard;
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
         and
     b) that, in the absence of such agreement, the parties          In Case T-84/97: Bureau EuropeÂen des Unions de
         are to send to the Court, within the same time-             Consommateurs (BEUC), established in Brussels,
         limit, their quantified submissions, stating the            represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor, assisted by
         precise reasons for which they are unable to accept         Bonifacio García Porras, of the Salamanca Bar, with an
         the proposals made by the other party;                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Avenue Marie-Adelaïde, against
9. Orders the Parliament to pay the costs.                           Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                     Nicholas Khan) Ð application for annulment of the
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                            Commission's decision of 3 February 1997 refusing to
                                                                     consider the applicant an interested party in the context of
                                                                     an anti-dumping procedure concerning imports of
                                                                     unbleached cotton fabrics originating in the People's
                                                                     Republic of China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and
                                                                     Turkey Ð the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                            Extended Composition), composed of: P. Lindh, President,
                                                                     R. García-Valdecasas, K. Lenaerts, J. D. Cooke and M.
                        of 9 June 1998                               Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
in Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97: Unifrigo Gadus Srl              4 May 1998, the operative part of which is as follows:
and CPL Imperial 2 SpA v Commission of the European
                        Communities (1)                              1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
(Post-clearance recovery of customs duties Ð Regulation              2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
   (EEC) No 1697/79 Ð Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93)
                         (98/C 234/50)                               (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
In Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97: Unifrigo Gadus Srl,
established at Naples (Italy), and CPL Imperial 2 SpA,
established at Pescara (Italy), represented by Giuseppe                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Celona, of the Milan Bar, with an address for service in                                    of 11 June 1998
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 Rue
                                                                     in   Case    T-167/97:     Kyriakos Skrikas    v   European
Philippe II, v Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                Parliament (1)
(Agents: initially, Fernando Castillo de la Torre and Paolo
Stancanelli and, subsequently, Mr Stancanelli) Ð                     (Officials Ð Decision not to promote an official Ð Action
application for annulment of Commission Decision C(96)               for annulment Ð Admissibility Ð Act adversely affecting
2780 def of 8 October 1996 ordering the post-clearance               an official Ð Consideration of the comparative merits Ð
recovery of customs duties and for compensation for the              Interinstitutional transfer Ð Article 45(1) of the Staff
damage allegedly suffered by the applicants Ð the Court                                        Regulations)
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili,                                    (98/C 234/52)
President, and C. P. BrieÈt and A. Potocki, Judges; J.
Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has                            (Language of the case: French)
given a judgment on 9 June 1998, in which it:
                                                                     In Case T-167/97: Kyriakos Skrikas, an official of the
1. Dismisses the applications;                                       European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg, represented


title: Joined Cases C-422/09, C-425/09 and C-426/09: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Vassiliki Stylianou Vandorou (C-422/09), Vassilios Alexandrou Giankoulis (C-425/09), Ioannis Georgiou Askoxilakis (C-426/09) v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton (Articles 39 EC and 43 EC — Directive 89/48/EC — Recognition of diplomas — Professional experience )

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/7

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 2 December 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Vassiliki Stylianou Vandorou (C-422/09), Vassilios Alexandrou Giankoulis (C-425/09), Ioannis Georgiou Askoxilakis (C-426/09) v Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton
   (Joined Cases C-422/09, C-425/09 and C-426/09) (1)

   (Articles 39 EC and 43 EC - Directive 89/48/EC - Recognition of diplomas - ‘Professional experience’)
   2011/C 30/10
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Vassiliki Stylianou Vandorou (C-422/09), Vassilios Alexandrou Giankoulis (C-425/09), Ioannis Georgiou Askoxilakis (C-426/09)

      Defendant: Ipourgos Ethnikis Pedias kai Thriskevmaton

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Art. 4(1)(b) of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) — Interpretation of Art. 1(3) of Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1) — Access to or pursuit of a regulated profession under the same conditions as nationals — Profession of accountant/tax advisor — ‘Professional experience’

      Operative part of the judgment

   A national authority responsible for recognition of professional qualifications acquired in another Member State is bound, pursuant to Articles 39 EC and 43 EC, to take into account, when setting any supplementary requirements to compensate for substantial differences between the education and training undertaken by an applicant and the education and training required in the host Member State, all practical experience which, in whole or in part, covers those differences.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 30.1.2010.


title: Case C-479/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Intellectual property — Community designs — Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 — Articles 7(1), 11(2), 19(2), 88 and 89(1)(a) and (d) — Unregistered Community design — Protection — Making available to the public — Novelty — Action for infringement — Burden of proof — Extinction of rights over time — Time-barring — Applicable law)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/12

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG v Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH
   (Case C-479/12) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Intellectual property - Community designs - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Articles 7(1), 11(2), 19(2), 88 and 89(1)(a) and (d) - Unregistered Community design - Protection - Making available to the public - Novelty - Action for infringement - Burden of proof - Extinction of rights over time - Time-barring - Applicable law)
   2014/C 93/19
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: H. Gautzsch Großhandel GmbH & Co. KG

      Respondent: Münchener Boulevard Möbel Joseph Duna GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of the first sentence of Article 7(1), Article 11(2), Article 19(2) and Article 89(1)(a) and (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) — ‘Making available to the public’ — Burden of proving that contested use results from copying the unregistered design — Design presented in showrooms lying beyond the usual field of observation of the profession and then made available to an undertaking in those specialised circles without any conditions of confidentiality — Whether the right to obtain an injunction prohibiting any use by a third party has been extinguished over time — Time-barring — Determining the law applicable to disputes concerning infringement and invalidity of Community designs.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               On a proper construction of Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, it is possible that an unregistered design may reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, if images of the design were distributed to traders operating in that sector, which it is for the Community design court to assess, having regard to the circumstances of the case before it;

               2.

               On a proper construction of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of Regulation No 6/2002, it is possible that an unregistered design may not reasonably have become known in the normal course of business to the circles specialised in the sector concerned, operating within the European Union, even though it was disclosed to third parties without any explicit or implicit conditions of confidentiality, if it has been made available to only one undertaking in that sector or has been presented only in the showrooms of an undertaking outside the European Union, which it is for the Community design court to assess, having regard to the circumstances of the case before it;

               3.

               On a proper construction of the first subparagraph of Article 19(2) of Regulation No 6/2002, the holder of the protected design must bear the burden of proving that the contested use results from copying that design. However, if a Community design court finds that the fact of requiring that holder to prove that the contested use results from copying that design is likely to make it impossible or excessively difficult for such evidence to be produced, that court is required, in order to ensure observance of the principle of effectiveness, to use all procedures available to it under national law to counter that difficulty, including, where appropriate, rules of national law which provide for the burden of proof to be adjusted or lightened;

               4.

               The defences of the extinction of rights over time and of an action being time-barred that may be raised against an action brought on the basis of Articles 19(2) and 89(1)(a) of Regulation No 6/2002 are governed by national law, which must be applied in a manner that observes the principles of equivalence and effectiveness;

               5.

               On a proper construction of Article 89(1)(d) of Regulation No 6/2002, claims for the destruction of infringing products are governed by the law of the Member State in which the acts of infringement or threatened infringement have been committed, including its private international law. Claims for compensation for damage resulting from the activities of the person responsible for the acts of infringement or threatened infringement and for disclosure, in order to determine the extent of that damage, of information relating to those activities, are governed, pursuant to Article 88(2) of that regulation, by the national law of the Community design court hearing the proceedings, including its private international law.

      (1)  OJ C 32, 2.2.2013.


title: Case C-57/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 3 February 2012 — Fédération des maisons de repos privées de Belgique (Femarbel) ASBL v Commission communautaire commune

text:
               21.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour constitutionnelle (Belgium) lodged on 3 February 2012 — Fédération des maisons de repos privées de Belgique (Femarbel) ASBL v Commission communautaire commune
   (Case C-57/12)
   2012/C 118/19
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour constitutionnelle

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fédération des maisons de repos privées de Belgique (Femarbel) ASBL

      Defendant: Commission communautaire commune

      Question referred

   Must the healthcare services referred to in Article 2(2)(f) and the social services referred to in Article 2(2)(j) of Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market (1) be interpreted in such a way as to exclude from the scope of the Directive day-care centres within the meaning of the ordinance of the Commission communautaire commune of 24 April 2008 on establishments receiving or accommodating old people, in so far as they provide assistance and care appropriate to the loss of independence of old people, and likewise night-care centres within the meaning of the same ordinance, in so far as they provided health assistance and care that cannot be given to old people by their close relatives on a continuous basis?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 376, p. 36.


title: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 1999 in Case C-304/98 P: W v Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Reassignment - Interests of the service - Administrative fault - Liability of the institution - Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)

text:
C 246/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.8.1999
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                    by Gilles Bouneou, of the Luxembourg Bar, with an address
                                                                           for service in Luxembourg at the latter’s Chambers, 4 Rue de
                           of 11 May 1999                                  l’Avenir — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                           Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 28
                                                                           May 1998 in Joined Cases T-78/96 and T-170/96 W v
in Case C-325/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                  Commission [1998] ECR-SC I-A-239 and II-745, seeking to
the Tribunal Grande Instance de Lille): Philippe Anssens                   have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
         v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Nord (1)                      being the Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
                                                                           Julian Currall, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck) — the Court
     (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissible)                   (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President
                                                                           of the Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-
                           (1999/C 246/14)                                 Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
                                                                           made an order on 10 June 1999, the operative part of which
                                                                           is as follows:
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           1. The appeal is dismissed.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                         2. W is to pay the costs.
In Case C-325/98: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
(ex Article 177) from the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Lille               (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Philippe Anssens and Directeur des
Services Fiscaux du Nord — on the interpretation of Article
95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) —
the Court composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
P.J.G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presi-
dents of Chambers, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
C. Gulmann, J.L. Murray, D.A.O. Edward, H. Ragnemalm,
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 11
May 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                       Appeal brought on 23 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
                                                                           ed on 25 February 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the
The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande         Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
Instance de Lille, by judgment of 7 August 1998, is inadmissible.          Joined Cases T-282/97 and T-57/98 between Antonio
                                                                           Giannini and the Commission of the European Communi-
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.                                                                               ties
                                                                                (Case C-153/99 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/16)
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 February
                                                                           1999 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                           (First Chamber)                                 the European Communities in Joined Cases T-282/97 and
                                                                           T-57/98 between Antonio Giannini and the Commission of
                           of 10 June 1999                                 the European Communities was brought before the Court of
                                                                           Justice of the European Communities on 23 April 1999 by the
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities, represented by
in Case C-304/98 P: W v Commission of the European                         Gianluigi Valsesia, Principal Legal Adviser, and Julian Currall,
                           Communities (1)                                 Legal Adviser, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels
                                                                           Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
(Officials — Reassignment — Interests of the service —                     Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Administrative fault — Liability of the institution —
        Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)
                                                                           The appellant claims that the Court should:
                           (1999/C 246/15)
                                                                           — declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           — consequently, annul the contested judgment (1); and
In Case C-304/98 P: W, an official of the Commission of the
European Communities, residing in Luxembourg, represented                  — order the respondent to the appeal to pay the costs.


title: Case C-224/11: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — BGŻ Leasing sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie (VAT — Leasing services supplied together with insurance for the leased item, subscribed to by the lessor and invoiced by the latter to the lessee — Classification — Single complex service or two distinct services — Exemption — Insurance transaction)

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — BGŻ Leasing sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie
   (Case C-224/11) (1)

   (VAT - Leasing services supplied together with insurance for the leased item, subscribed to by the lessor and invoiced by the latter to the lessee - Classification - Single complex service or two distinct services - Exemption - Insurance transaction)
   2013/C 63/04
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: BGŻ Leasing sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny, Izba Finansowa, Wydział I — Intrerpretation of Articles 2(1)(c), 28 and 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Leasing service accompanied by a service involving the taking-out of insurance on the subject-matter of the leasing service, entered into by the leasing undertaking and invoiced by the latter to the lessee — Whether the transaction is to be treated, for purposes of VAT, as a single composite service or as two independent services

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The supply of insurance services for a leased item and the supply of the leasing services themselves must, in principal, be regarded as distinct and independents supplies of services for VAT purposes. It if for the referring court to determine whether, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the transactions concerned are so closely linked that they must be regarded as constituting a single supply or whether, to the contrary, they constitute independent services.

               2.

               Where the lessor insures the leased item itself and re-invoices the exact cost of the insurance to the lessee, such a transaction constitutes, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, an insurance transaction within the meaning of Article 135(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 219, 23.7.2011.


title: Case C-211/06P: Appeal brought on  9 May 2006  by Herta Adam against the judgment delivered on  22 February 2006  by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-342/04 Herta Adam v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/18

         Appeal brought on 9 May 2006 by Herta Adam against the judgment delivered on 22 February 2006 by the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-342/04 Herta Adam v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-211/06P)
   (2006/C 165/32)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant:Herta Adam (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 22 February 2006 in Case T-342 Herta Adam v Commission of the European Communities in its entirety;

               —

               Annul the Commission's decision of 22 September 2003 refusing the applicant the benefit of the expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of appeal and at first instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appeal is based on the allegation that the Court of First Instance erred in law in interpreting the concept of ‘circumstances arising from work done for another State’ set out in the second indent of Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 July 2000 in Case T-146/99: Rui Teixeira Neves v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Officials — Internal competition — Competition notice — Appointment to the post of legal adviser — Mandatory requirement — Preferential criterion — Statement of reasons — Misuse of powers)

text:
C 259/20                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9.9.2000
pension for her infant daughter — the Court of First Instance               applicant, 10 Am Gronn, Sandweiler, v Court of Justice of
(First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and                 the European Communities (Agents: N. Lierow and C. Pinto
M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Admin-              Correia) — application for annulment, first, of the decision of
istrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 July                the selection board in competition No CJ 41/98 of 15 March
2000, in which it:                                                          1999 not to include the applicant’s name in the list of suitable
                                                                            candidates and, second, of all subsequent measures adopted in
1.    Declares that there is no need to rule on the applicant’s claim       the context of that competition, and also of the appointment
      for recognition of her entitlement to receive family allowances       of the successful candidate to the post of legal adviser on
      from July 1998 onwards;                                               administrative matters — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
                                                                            Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, and J.D. Cooke
2.    Dismisses as inadmissible the claims for recognition of the           and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
      entitlement of the applicant and of her child Mira Posnantek to       Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 July 2000, in which it:
      receive the family allowances which should have been paid to
      Roger Posnantek, together with default interest, pursuant to
                                                                            1.    Dismisses the action;
      Article 67 of the Staff Regulations;
3.    Annuls the Commission’s decision of 9 March 1999 inasmuch             2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
      as it refuses to recognise, first, the applicant’s entitlement to
      receive the household allowance and the dependent child
                                                                            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
      allowance for the period running from the death of Roger
      Posnantek until the end of the third month following the month
      in which that death occurred and, second, the entitlement of the
      child Mira Posnantek to an orphan’s pension from July 1998
      onwards;
4.    Orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the amount of
      the allowances and pension referred to in point 3 of the
      operative part of this judgment, together with default interest at        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      the annual rate of 6,25 %, subject to the deduction therefrom
      of any benefits of the same kind which may have been received
                                                                                of 13 July 2000
      by the applicant from other sources;
5.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                                in Case T-157/99: Helga Griesel v Council of the European
                                                                                Union (1)
6.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay two
      thirds of the applicant’s costs. The applicant is ordered to bear
      one third of her own costs.                                           (Officials — Refusal of promotion — Statement of reasons
                                                                            — Examination of the comparative merits of the candidates)
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                                (2000/C 259/35)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 In Case T-157/99: Helga Griesel, an official of the Council of
                                                                            the European Union, residing in Brussels, represented by
                           of 14 July 2000                                  J. Sambon and P.-P. Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                            an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
in Case T-146/99: Rui Teixeira Neves v Court of Justice of                  L. Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v Council of the
                  the European Communities (1)                              European Union (Agents: F. Anton and C. Robertson) — appli-
                                                                            cation for annulment of the Council’s decision not to promote
(Officials — Internal competition — Competition notice —                    the applicant from grade C 5 to grade C 4 in the course of the
Appointment to the post of legal adviser — Mandatory                        1998 promotions procedure — the Court of First Instance
requirement — Preferential criterion — Statement of reasons                 (Single Judge: A. Potocki); G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
                       — Misuse of powers)                                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 July 2000, in which it:
                          (2000/C 259/34)                                   1.    Dismisses the action;
                                                                            2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                   (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case T-146/99: Rui Teixeira Neves, an official of the Court              (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
of Justice of the European Communities, residing at Sandweiler
(Luxembourg), represented by A. Encarnação, of the Oporto
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg care of the


title: Case T-68/03: Action brought on 24 February 2003 by Olimpiaki Aeroporia A.E. (Olympic Airways) against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 112/32                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         10.5.2003
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         of 4 March 2003                                    —      annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
                                                                                Office of 5 December 2002 in Case No R 1072/2000-2;
in Case T-316/02: Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission                        —      order the defendant to pay all the costs.
               of the European Communities ( 1)
(Officials — Action for annulment — Refusal to admit to
the tests of a competition — Irregularity of the prior                      Pleas in law and main arguments
administrative procedure — Manifest inadmissibility of the
                       action for annulment)                                Applicants for Com-            F. Dann and A. Backer
                                                                            munity trade mark:
                          (2003/C 112/62)
                                                                            Community trade mark           The word mark ‘HOOLIGAN’ —
                                                                            sought:                        application No 7179 filed in
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                respect of goods in Class 25
                                                                            Proprietor of mark or          The applicant
In Case T-316/02: Marie-Claude Girardot, residing in L’Haye                 sign cited in the oppo-
les Roses (France), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an             sition proceedings:
address for service in Luxembourg, against the Commission of
the European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart                    Mark or sign cited in          The French word mark and the
and H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the                  opposition:                    international word mark ‘OLLY
rejection of the applicant’s application to take part in the tests                                         GAN’, registered, inter alia, for
for Internal Competition COM/R/502211/01 — the Court of                                                    goods in Class 25 (clothing)
First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,
President, and R.M. Moura Ramos and H. Legal, Judges;                       Decision of the Oppo-          Refusal of the application for
H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 4 March 2003, the                  sition Division:               registration
operative part of of which is as follows:
                                                                            Decision of the Board of       Annulment of the decision of the
                                                                            Appeal:                        Opposition Division
1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                            Pleas in law:                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
2.    The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.                                                     Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of
                                                                                the legal concept of likelihood of
                                                                                confusion.
( 1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.02.
Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Société Provença-                     Action brought on 24 February 2003 by Olimpiaki
le d’Achat et de Gestion (SPAG) against the Office for                      Aeroporia A.E. (Olympic Airways) against the Com-
            Harmonisation in the Internal Market                                        mission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-57/03)                                                             (Case T-68/03)
                          (2003/C 112/63)                                                            (2003/C 112/64)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                              (Language of the Case: Greek)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2003 by Société                         European Communities on 24 February 2003 by Olimpiaki
Provençale d’Achat et de Gestion (SPAG), established in                     Aeroporia A.E. (Olympic Airways), whose seat is at 96-100
Marseilles, France, represented by K. Manhaeve, lawyer, with                Leoforos Singrou, 11741 Athens, Greece, represented by Denis
an address for service in Luxembourg. F. Dann and A. Backer,                Waelbroek, Efthimios Bourtzalas, Julian Ellison, Matthew Hall,
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, were also parties to the proceed-               Andreas Kalogeropoulos, Kharis Tagaras and Aristidis Khiote-
ings before the Board of Appeal.                                            lis, lawyers.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.5.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 112/33
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              —    The applicant further submits that the final instalment of
                                                                              the State aid which had been authorised by
—     annul in whole or in part, under Articles 230 EC and                    Decision 1999/332/EC was never paid to it, an omission
      231 EC, the Commission decision of 11 December 2002                     known to, and approved by, the Commission and consti-
      (C(2002) 4831 final) on State aid granted by Greece to                  tuting an amendment of the restructuring programme to
      the applicant;                                                          which the Commission had likewise agreed. On the basis
                                                                              of that submission, the applicant contends that the
                                                                              principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   an essential procedural requirement have been breached
                                                                              by the Commission which now pleads breach of the
                                                                              original programme, when that programme, with the
                                                                              agreement of the Commission itself, was never completed.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               The applicant also pleads breach of the non bis in idem
                                                                              rule, arguing that the non-payment of the final instalment
                                                                              of the State aid constitutes a penalty imposed by the
The applicant is an air transport company whose head office                   Commission, which has thus exhausted its right to
is in Athens. By the contested decision, the Commission                       impose penalties and is unable to go back.
declared certain restructuring aid which had been granted by
Greece to the applicant to be incompatible with the common
market within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, on the ground
that the conditions subject to which the aid had initially been
authorised by Commission Decision 1999/332/EC were no
longer met. In the decision, the Commission also declared
incompatible with the common market new State aid
implemented by Greece in favour of the applicant in the form
of tolerance of its prolonged non-payment of social security
contributions, value added tax, the airport passenger tax
known as ‘Spatosimo’ and charges and rent which were                     Action brought on 3 March 2003 by Tokai Carbon Co.,
payable by it to airports. The Commission required Greece to             Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communi-
take all the necessary measures to recover from the applicant                                           ties
the abovementioned aid.
                                                                                (Case T-71/03)
In support of its action, the applicant pleads:
—     that the Commission committed manifest errors of                                           (2003/C 112/65)
      assessment and appraisal, infringed the obligation to state
      reasons, erred in law, infringed the rules concerning the
      burden of proof and infringed the right to a fair hearing
      so far as concerns its conclusions that Greece failed to                             (Language of the case: English)
      comply with certain of the undertakings entered into by
      it and referred to in Decisions 1999/332/EC and 94/696/
      EC. The applicant also pleads that Article 87(3)(c) EC was
      infringed or misapplied in that the Commission failed
      to examine sufficiently or correctly whether the aid               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      authorised in 1998 could be considered compatible with             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      that article.                                                      European Communities on 3 March 2003 by Tokai Carbon
                                                                         Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, represented by Mr Gerwin Van Gerven
—     that the Commission committed manifest errors of                   and Mr Thomas Franchoo, Lawyers, with an address for service
      assessment and appraisal, infringed the obligation to state        in Luxembourg.
      reasons, erred in law, infringed the rules concerning the
      burden of proof, infringed the right to a fair hearing and
      offended against the principle of legal certainty so far as
      concerns its findings relating to the new aid purportedly          The applicant claims that the Court should:
      granted by Greece to the applicant in the form of
      tolerance of non-payment of charges, tax and rent, as
      referred to above.                                                 —    annul Article 3 of the Commission decision C(2002)
                                                                              5083 final of 17 December 2002 in Case COMP/E-2/
                                                                              37.667 — Speciality Graphite, insofar as it imposes a fine
—     that the Commission misused its powers since, in the                    of — 6,97 million on the applicant, or alternatively, to
      applicant’s submission, the motive for the contested                    substantially reduce that fine; and
      decision is the desire that the ‘coup de grâce’ be adminis-
      tered to the applicant or at least that the applicant be
      weakened.                                                          —    order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 29 June 1995 in Case T-6/95: Cantine dei colli Berici coop. arl v. Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Common organization of the market in wine - System of compulsory distillation - Admissibility - Applicant individually concerned by a regulation)

text:
14 . 10 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 268/23
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Parliament concerning the subsequent conduct of that
                          of 29 June 1995                              procedure, the President of the Court of First Instance has
                                                                       made an order on 18 August 1995 , in which :
in Case T-6/95 : Cantine dei colli Berici coop, arl v.
        Commission of the European Communities ( J )                   1 , the application for interim measures is dismissed;
(Agriculture — Common organization ofthe market in wine
— System of compulsory distillation — Admissibility —                  2,   the costs are reserved.
       Applicant individually concerned by a regulation)
                           ( 95/C 268/49 )
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       Action brought on 28 February 1995 by Comafrica SpA and
In Case T-6/95 : Cantine dei colli Berici coop , arl, having its       another against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
registered office in Lonigo ( Italy ), represented by Ivone
Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with an address for service                                  ( Case T-72/95 )
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 rue                                            ( 95/C 268/51 )
Albert I er, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and Alberto Dal                                (Language of the case: English)
Ferro ) — application for the annulment of Article 1 ( 1 ) of
Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 3151 /94 of 21 December
1994 introducing a further derogation from the detailed                An action against the Commission of the European
rules for the delivery by producers of the table wine they are         Communities was brought before the Court of First
required to deliver for compulsory distillation in respect of          Instance of the European Communities on 28 February
the 1993/94 wine year ( OJ L 332, 1994, p. 32 ) — the Court            1 995 by Comafrica SpA, established at Genoa (Italy ), and
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: J.                     Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co ., established at Hamburg
Biancarelli, President, C. P. Briët and C. W. Bellamy, Judges;         ( Germany ), represented by Bernard O'Connor, Solicitor
H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 June 1995 , the                ( Ireland ), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
operative part of which is as follows :                                Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 12 boulevard de la
                                                                       Foire .
I , the application is dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                       The applicants claim that the Court should :
2 , the applicant is ordered to pay the costs, including those
      relating to the application for interim measures;                — déclaré the application admissible,
3 , the Council shall bear the costs which it incurred in              — declare void Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 2947/94
      submitting its application to intervene.                              of 2 December 1994 fixing the single reduction
                                                                            coefficient for the determination of the quantity of
                                                                            bananas to be allocated to operators in categories A and
( 1 ) OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .                                           B from the tariff quota for 1995 ( ! ), in so far as it affects
                                                                            the applicants, or alternatively, erga omnes,
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              The applicants, both of which import bananas into the
                                                                       Community, dispute the decisions of the Commission to
                        of 18 August 1995
                                                                       reduce the quantity of bananas allocated to them for the
in Case T-146/95 R: Giorgio Bernardi v. European                       year 1995 through the allocation of a provisional reduction
                              Parliament                               coefficient set out in the contested regulation.
                           ( 95/C 268/50 )
                                                                       They maintain, first, that the Commission determined the
                                                                       reduction coefficient on the basis of wrongly calculated
                 (Language of the case: French)                        reference quantities, in that the contested Regulation
                                                                       acknowledges that certain quantities have been counted
In Case T- 1 46/95 R: Giorgio Bernardi, a former official of           twice for different operators in several Member States, and
the European Parliament, residing in Luxembourg,                       that the criteria for determining the activities giving right to
represented by Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara                an allocation from the tariff quota have been incorrectly
Bar ( Italy ), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the        applied . The Commission has further admitted that the
applicant's residence, 33 rue Godchaux v . European                     1995 reference quantities can only be laid down after
Parliament ( Agents : Ezio Perillo and Christian Pennera ) —           further checks have been made . In the circumstances, it has
application for interim measures, namely for suspension of             chosen to fix a provisional reduction coefficient using
the procedure for appointment to the office of Ombudsman               wrong information, but without the necessary express
and for various instructions to be addressed to the European           power so to do.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case C-325/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles): Union Nationale des Mutualités Socialistes v. Aldo Del Grosso (Cumulation of benefits - Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

text:
3 . 6 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 137/5
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                        classify the benefits in question in accordance with the
                       ( Second Chamber)                                    applicable national legislation, taking into account the
                                                                            rules relating to conflict of laws, since the Community
                         of 6 April 1995                                    rules are not relevant.
in Case C-325/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles ): Union Nationale des
         Mutualités Socialistes v. Aldo Del Grosso (M                 H OJ No C 211 , 5 . 8 . 1993 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 149 , 5 . 7 . 1971 , p . 2 .
(Cumulation of benefits — Interpretation of Regulation
                      (EEC) No 1408/71)
                          ( 95/C 137/09
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                      of 6 April 1995
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      in Case C-439/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the French Cour de Cassation ): Lloyd's Register of Shipping
                                                                                v. Societe Campenon Bernard f1 )
In Case C-325/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       (Brussels Convention — Article 5 (5) — Dispute arising out
of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles                               of the operations of a branch)
( Labour Court, Brussels ) for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                                ( 95/C 137/10 )
proceedings pending before that court between Union
Nationale des Mutualites Socialistes and Aldo Del Grosso,
with the Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidite,
intervener in the main proceedings, on the interpretation of                            (Language of the case: French)
Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed
persons and their families moving within the Community ( 2 )           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
— the Court ( Second Chamber ) composed of F. A.                                 published in the European Court Reports)
Schockweiler, President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini and
J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur ), Judges ; Advocate-General; W.
Van Gerven, Registrar, D. Louterman-Hubeau, has given a               In Case C-439/93 : reference to the Court pursuant to the
judgment on 6 April 19 95 , in which it rules :                       Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court
                                                                      of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
                                                                      Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
                                                                       Commercial Matters by the French Cour de Cassation
 1 . an invalidity benefit such as the Italian 'invalidity             ( Court of Cassation ) for a preliminary ruling in the
      pension ' is not an independent benefit within the               proceedings pending before that court between Lloyd 's
      meaning of Article 46 (1 ) of Council Regulation (EEC)           Register of Shipping and Societe Campenon Bernard, on the
      No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application ofsocial           interpretation of Article 5 ( 5 ) of the said Convention ( 2 ), as
      security schemes to employed persons and their families          amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the
      moving within the Community inasmuch as it is                    Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the
      calculated in accordance with the system ofaggregation          United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( 3 )
      of insurance periods and apportionment of benefits;             — the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
                                                                       President, F. A. Schockweiler (Rapporteur ), P. J. G.
                                                                       Kapteyn, C. Gulmann ( Presidents of Chambers ), C. N.
 2 . Article 12 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 , cited             Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
      above, does not preclude the application of a national           Edward and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
      rule against overlapping benefits where a migrant                Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave
      worker receives in a Member State benefits intended to           a judgment on 6 April 1995 , the operative part of which is as
                                                                       follows :
      compensate for loss of income as a result of incapacity
      for work due to sickness and in another Member State
      an invalidity benefit calculated by aggregating insurance
      periods and apportioning benefits, increased by a                The expression 'dispute arising out of the operations of a
      pension supplement intended to guarantee him the                 branch, agency or other establishment' in Article 5 (5) of the
      minimum national pension;                                        Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the
                                                                       Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
                                                                       Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978
                                                                       on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and
 3 . for the purposes of applying national rules against the           the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
      overlapping of benefits it is for the national court to          does not presuppose that the undertakings in question


title: Case C-276/13: Order of the President of the Court of 11 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Pontevedra — Spain) — Pablo Acosta Padín v Hijos de J. Barreras SA

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 11 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Mercantil de Pontevedra — Spain) — Pablo Acosta Padín v Hijos de J. Barreras SA
   (Case C-276/13) (1)

   2014/C 102/47
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-96/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 22 February 2010 — Frans Bosschaert v Belgische Staat, Slachthuizen Georges Goossens en Zonen NV and Slachthuizen Goossens NV

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/28

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 22 February 2010 — Frans Bosschaert v Belgische Staat, Slachthuizen Georges Goossens en Zonen NV and Slachthuizen Goossens NV
   (Case C-96/10)
   2010/C 113/44
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

               Applicant

               :

               Frans Bosschaert

               Defendants

               :

                           Belgische Staat

                           Slachthuizen Georges Goossens en Zonen NV

                           Slachthuizen Goossens NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Community law preclude national courts from applying the limitation period of five years which is laid down in the internal legal system for claims in respect of debts owed by the State to claims for the reimbursement of charges paid to a Member State under a hybrid system of aid and charges which not only was partially illegal but was also found to be partially incompatible with Community law, and which were paid before the entry into force of a new system of aid and compulsory contributions which replaces the first system, and which, by a final decision of the Commission, was declared compatible with Community law, but not in so far as those charges are imposed retroactively in respect of a period prior to the date of that decision?

               2.

               Does Community law preclude a situation in which, when a Member State levies charges on a private individual who is in turn obliged to pass the charges on to other private individuals with whom he carries on a commercial activity in a sector on which the Member State has imposed a hybrid system of aid and charges, but that system was subsequently found to be not only partially illegal but also partially incompatible with Community law, those individuals are then, by reason of national provisions, subject to a shorter limitation period with regard to the Member State in respect of the recovery of contributions levied in breach of Community law, whereas they have a longer limitation period with regard to recovery of that same amounts from a private intermediary, with the result that such an intermediary might find itself in a situation where the claim against it is not time-barred but the claim against the Member State is, and the intermediary may thus have an action brought against it by other parties and consequently have to seek indemnification from the Member State concerned, but cannot recover from that Member State the contributions which it paid directly to that Member State?

               3.

               Does Community law preclude a Member State from successfully invoking national limitation periods which, in comparison with those applicable under ordinary national law, are particularly favourable to that Member State, as a defence against proceedings instituted against it by a private individual with a view to vindicating that private individual’s rights under the EEC Treaty, in a case such as that before the national court, in which the effect of those particularly favourable national limitation periods is to render impossible the recovery of charges which were paid to the Member State under a hybrid system of aid and charges which not only was partially illegal but was also found to be partially incompatible with Community law, where the conflict with Community law was established by the then Court of Justice of the European Communities only after those particularly favourable national limitation periods had expired, even if the illegality had existed earlier?


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 10 April 1995 in Case T-66/95 R: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
No C 137/22           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3 . 6 . 95
Regulation ( EC ) No 2557/94 of 19 October 1994 imposing               Arlon ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry
a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of calcium metal             Demaseure and Ariane Tournel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
originating in the People's Republic of China and Russia ( OJ          address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
1994 L 270, p. 27 ) — the President of the Court of First              Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of
Instance made an order on 24 February 1995 , the operative             the European Communities ( Agent: A. M. Alves Vieira ) —
part of which is as follows :                                          application for suspension of the implementation of the
                                                                       decision of 18 January 1995 whereby the appointing
1 . the application for suspension of the operation of the             authority imposed on the applicant the disciplinary measure
     Regulation is dismissed;                                          of removal from post without withdrawal of entitlement to
                                                                       retirement pension provided for by Article 86 ( 2 ) ( f) of the
2 . there is no need to rule on the applications to                    Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities
     intervene;                                                        — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                                                                       on 31 March 1995 , the operative part of which is as
3.   the costs are reserved.                                           follows :
                                                                       1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                                                                       2.   the costs are reserved.
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 15 March 1995
in Case T-6/95 R: Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop, arl v.
         Commission of the European Communities
                         ( 95/C 137/54 )
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
                (Language of the case: Italian)                                  OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 10 April 1995
In Case T-6/95 R : Cantine dei Colli Berici Coop , arl, having         in    Case T-66/95 R: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter v.
its registered office in Lonigo ( Italy ), represented by Ivone                 Commission of the European Communities
Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue                                            ( 95/C 137/56 )
Albert l er, against Commission of the European
Communities ( Agents: E. de March and A. Dal Ferro ) —
application for suspension of the operation of Article 1(1 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
of Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 3151 /94 of
21 December 1994 introducing a further derogation from                 In Case T-66/95 R: Hedwig Kuchlenz-Winter, the divorced
the detailed rules for the delivery by producers of the table          spouse of a former official of the European Parliament,
wine they are required to deliver for compulsory distillation          residing at Kehlen ( Luxembourg ), represented by Dieter
in respect of the 1993/94 wine year ( OJ 1994 L 332, p. 32 )           Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, Sprockhovel, with an address for
— the President of the Court of First Instance made an order
                                                                       service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Armin Machmer,
on 15 March 1995 , the operative part of which is as                   1 Rue Roger Barthel, Bereldange, v. Commission of the
follows :
                                                                       European Communities (Agents : J. Griesmar, J. Burrall and
                                                                       B. Wagenbaur ) — application for interim measures
1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;                 concerning, primarily, an order for suspension of the
2.   the costs are reserved.
                                                                       implementation of an alleged decision of the Luxembourg
                                                                       Claims Office whereby the applicant was to cease to be
                                                                       covered by the sickness insurance scheme common to the
                                                                       institutions of the European Communities with effect from
                                                                       31 March 1995 , and, as a subsidiary plea, an order that such
                                                                       cover should not cease on the expiry of the period prescribed
               ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                  by Article 72 ( lb ) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the
          OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               European Communities, namely one year after the date of
                                                                       the decree absolute of divorce of the applicant — the
                      of 31 March 1995                                 President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
in Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels v. Commission of the               10 April 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
                    European Communities
                         ( 95 /C 137/55 )                              1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
                (Language of the case: French)                         2.   the costs are reserved.
In Case T-40/95 R: Philippe Guebels , an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing at


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 22 May 2003 in Case C-393/01: French Republic v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — Animal health — Emergency measures to combat bovine spongiform encephalopathy — "Mad cow" disease — Decision to lift the ban on bovine products originating in Portugal)

text:
19.7.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 171/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                           of 22 May 2003                                                                 of 22 May 2003
in Case C-393/01: French Republic v Commission of the                        in Case C-441/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                    European Communities ( 1)                                               ties v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)
(Agriculture — Animal health — Emergency measures to                         (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
combat bovine spongiform encephalopathy — ‘Mad cow’                          89/391/EEC — Measures to encourage improvements in the
disease — Decision to lift the ban on bovine products                             safety and health of workers at work — Article 7(3))
                       originating in Portugal)
                                                                                (2003/C 171/09)
                           (2003/C 171/08)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-441/01, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-393/01, French Republic (Agents: R. Abraham and                    (Agents: H. van Vliet and H. Kreppel ) v Kingdom of
G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, the by the latter and G. de             the Netherlands (Agent: H. G. Sevenster): Application for a
Bergues and F. Alabrune) v Commission of the European                        declaration that, by authorising employers to choose freely
Communities (Agents: D. Booß and G. Berscheid), supported                    whether to make use of internal or external health and safety
by Portuguese Republic (Agent: L. Fernandes), United Kingdom                 services, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:J. E. Collins):                 obligations under the EC Treaty and Article 7(3) of Council
Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2001/                       Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of
577/EC of 25 July 2001 setting the date on which dispatch                    measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health
from Portugal of bovine products under the Date-Based Export                 of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
Scheme may commence by virtue of Article 22(2) of Decision                   Chamber), composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans, President of
2001/376/EC (OJ 2001 L 203, p. 27), the Court (Fifth                         the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth
Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamb-                  Chamber, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, S. von Bahr and A. Rosas
er, C. W. A. Timmermans, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and                      (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                  eral; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given            has given a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:
a judgment on 22 May 2003, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by not reflecting, in its national legislation the
1.    Annuls Commission Decision 2001/577/EC of 25 July 2001                       subsidiary nature of the enlistment by undertakings of external
      setting the date on which dispatch from Portugal of bovine                   competent services to carry out activities related to protection
      products under the Date-Based Export Scheme may commence                     against and prevention of occupational risks within those
      by virtue of Article 22(2) of Decision 2001/376/EC;                          undertakings, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to
                                                                                fulfil its obligations under Article 7(3) of Council Directive 89/
                                                                                391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to
2.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs;                                      encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at
                                                                                work.
3.    Orders the Portuguese Republic and the United Kingdom of
      Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.            2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.                                                  (1 ) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002.


title: Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08: Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Team Relocations and Others v Commission (Competition — Cartels — International removal services market in Belgium — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing — Market-sharing — Bid rigging — Single and continuous infringement — Imputability of the infringement — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 June 2011 — Team Relocations and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-204/08 and T-212/08) (1)

   (Competition - Cartels - International removal services market in Belgium - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing - Market-sharing - Bid rigging - Single and continuous infringement - Imputability of the infringement - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
   2011/C 226/48
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Team Relocations NV (Zaventem, Belgium) (represented by: H. Gilliams and J. Bocken, lawyers) (Case T-204/08); Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom); Trans Euro Ltd (London); and Team Relocations Ltd (London) (represented by: L. Gyselen, lawyer) (Case T-212/08)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouquet, A. Antoniadis and N. von Lingen, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 926 final of 11 March 2008 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.543 — International Removal Services), and, in the alternative, the annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicants.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Team Relocations NV, Amertranseuro International Holdings Ltd, Trans Euro Ltd and Team Relocations Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 197, 2.8.2008.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/59

         Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case T-61/04)
   (2004/C 94/152)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik, established in České Budějovice (Czech Republic), represented by Fabienne Fajgenbaum, lawyer.
   Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 3 December 2003;

               —

               reject the application for the registration of BUD for Class 21 filed on 1 April 1996 on behalf of Anheuser-Busch;

               —

               order Anheuser-Busch to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘BUD’ — Application No 24737 in respect of goods in Class 21

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               Applicant

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               Appellations of origin ‘BUD’

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Opposition rejected

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Incorrect application of Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1). The applicant, entitled in France to use the above-mentioned appellations of origin, submits that French law enables it to oppose the registration of the mark sought without having to demonstrate that the appellations in question possess a reputation in France and without having to examine whether the use of the mark at issue could have the consequence of misappropriating or weakening the reputation of those appellations.

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