title: Case T-650/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Knus-Galán v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/64

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Knus-Galán v Parliament
   (Case T-650/15)
   (2016/C 048/72)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Minna Knus-Galán (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8551 C of the European Parliament of 14 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Case T-319/06: Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Moreira da Fonseca v OHIM — General Óptica (GENERAL OPTICA)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/70

         Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Moreira da Fonseca v OHIM — General Óptica (GENERAL OPTICA)
   (Case T-319/06)
   (2006/C 326/146)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Alberto Jorge Moreira da Fonseca Lda (Santo Tirso, Portugal) (represented by: M. Oehen Mendes, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: General Óptica SA (Barcelona, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 August 2006 notified to the applicant 27 September 2006, in cancellation proceedings No 828C (Case No R 944/2005-1) and consequently declare Community trade mark No 2 436 798‘GENERAL OPTICA’ filed on 5 November 2001 and registered on 20 November 2002, as invalid, or in the alternative, revoked;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘GENERAL OPTICA’ for services in class 42 (Opticians' services) — Community trade mark No 2 436 798

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: General Óptica SA

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The earlier national trade name ‘Generalóptica’ for import and retail sale of optical, precision and photographic apparatus

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of among others Article 8(1) and (4) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the two signs and the applicant's sign is granted national protection.
   Infringement of Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 as OHIM omitted its duty to ask the applicant to present evidence of the earlier use invoked.


title: Case C-134/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof (Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court of 2 April 2002 in the case of Hoogenboom Production Ltd. against head of the Roosendaal Customs district

text:
C 144/22                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.6.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof                           No 000206698 and No 000206870 pursuant to Article 7
(Douanekamer) te Amsterdam by judgment of that Court                            of the Community Trade Mark Regulation;
of 2 April 2002 in the case of Hoogenboom Production
    Ltd. against head of the Roosendaal Customs district
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of
                                                                                14 February 2000 in Cases R 0237/1999-2, R 0238/
                          (Case C-134/02)                                       1999-2, R 0239/1999-2, R 0240/1999-2 and R 0241/
                                                                                1999-2;
                          (2002/C 144/37)
                                                                          —     order the respondent to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof
(Douanekamer) te Amsterdam (Amsterdam Regional Court of
Appeal) Customs Chamber of 2 April 2002, received at the                  Pleas and main arguments
Court Registry on 10 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Hoogenboom Production Ltd. against head of the
Roosendaal Customs district on the following question:                    —     Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                                No 40/94 (2): the Court of First Instance does not deal in
The question is identical to Case C-133/02.                                     its judgment with the overall signs in respect of which
                                                                                registration is sought but rather, as a result of a divided
                                                                                analysis, bases its examination on signs which are not
(1) See p. 21 of the present Official Journal.                                  those in respect of which the applications were made.
                                                                          —     Incorrect evaluation of evidence running counter to the
                                                                                principles of logic: the facts and evidence which the Court
                                                                                of First Instance expressly did not consider and which
                                                                                relate solely to distinctiveness of origin were wrongly not
                                                                                taken into account by the Court on the ground that they
Appeal brought on 11 April 2002 by Mag Instrument, Inc.                         relate only to distinctiveness resulting from use and the
against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002 by the                        Court thereby acted illogically. However, even in the case
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                            of facts and evidence with respect to which it cannot be
European Communities in Case T-88/00 between Mag                                excluded that they relate, inter alia, to distinctiveness
Instrument, Inc. and the Office for Harmonisation in the                        resulting from use, there is much to support the view that
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                              the distinctiveness does not result only from use but,
                                                                                rather, that it already existed originally. Obviously, only a
                                                                                good design will be imitated.
                         (Case C-136/02 P)
                                                                          —     Infringement of the right to a hearing (Article 6(2) of the
                          (2002/C 144/38)
                                                                                EU Treaty in conjunction with Article 6 ECHR, first
                                                                                indent of Article 41(2) of the EU Charter of Fundamental
                                                                                Rights): the Court of First Instance did not deal in
                                                                                a concrete manner with the wide variety of shapes
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 February 2002                     demonstrated by the facts and evidence submitted by the
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                         appellant and clearly failed to analyse sufficiently the
the European Communities in Case T-88/00 between Mag                            submitted material relating to original distinctiveness.
Instrument, Inc. and the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (1) was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                —     Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94:
11 April 2002 by Mag Instrument, Inc., represented by                           the Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that
A. Nette, G. Rahn, W. von der Osten-Sacken and H. Stratmann                     the accepted public view — that is, the actual perception
of the lawyers’ office Hoffmann Eitle in Munich.                                by consumers — cannot be considered in the context of
                                                                                Article 7(1)(b) but, rather, exclusively in the context of
                                                                                Article 7(3).
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of            —     Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94:
      the European Communities of 7 February 2002 in Case                       the Court of First Instance failed to make any findings of
      T-88/00, holding that there are no absolute grounds for                   fact of its own with respect to the issues of whether, as it
      refusal to register the Community trade mark applications                 simply presumed in a general manner, the shapes are in
      No 000139527, No 000119552, No 000206789,                                 fact common, the consumer is accustomed to the shapes


title: Case C-263/11: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Ainārs Rēdlihs v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Sixth VAT Directive — Directive 2006/112/EC — Concept of ‘economic activity’ — Supplies of timber in order to alleviate the damage caused by a storm — Reverse charge procedure — Failure to register in the register of taxable persons — Fine — Principle of proportionality)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/13

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Latvia) — Ainārs Rēdlihs v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-263/11) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Directive 2006/112/EC - Concept of ‘economic activity’ - Supplies of timber in order to alleviate the damage caused by a storm - Reverse charge procedure - Failure to register in the register of taxable persons - Fine - Principle of proportionality)
   2012/C 295/21
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāts

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ainārs Rēdlihs

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Augstākās tiesas Senāts — Interpretation of Article 4 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and Article 9 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Concepts of ‘taxable person’ and ‘economic activity’ — Supplies of timber made by an individual, the owner of a forest intended for his personal use, in order to alleviate the damage caused by a storm — Compliance with the principle of proportionality of a national measure penalising, by a fine fixed at the level of the amount of tax normally payable for the value of the goods supplied, the failure to register in the register of taxable persons for VAT purposes, whereas the person concerned was not liable for the tax, even if he had registered in that register

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 9(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2006/138/EC of 19 December 2006, must be interpreted as meaning that supplies of timber made by a natural person for the purpose of alleviating the consequences of a case of force majeure come within the scope of the exploitation of tangible property, which must be regarded as an ‘economic activity’ within the meaning of that provision, where those supplies are carried out for the purposes of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis. It is for the national court to carry out an assessment of all the circumstances of the case in order to determine whether the exploitation of tangible property, such as a forest, is carried out for the purposes of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis.

               2.

               European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that it is possible that a rule of national law allowing a fine to be imposed, fixed at the level of the rate of VAT normally applicable for the value of the goods transferred in the supplies made, on an individual who has failed to fulfil his obligation to register in the register of taxable persons for VAT purposes and who was not liable for that tax, may be contrary to the principle of proportionality. It is for the national court to determine whether the amount of the penalty does not go further than is necessary to attain the objectives of ensuring the correct levying and collection of the tax and preventing fraud, having regard to the facts of the case and, inter alia, the sum actually imposed and the possible existence of fraud or circumvention of the applicable legislation attributable to the taxable person whose failure to register is being penalised.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 January 1996 in the case of Bayerische Hypotheken- und Wechselbank AG v. Edgar Dietzinger (Case C-45/96)

text:
30 . 3 . 96            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 95/ 13
      operations of the European Investment Bank and the               Eerste Aanleg ( Court of First Instance ), Bruges, of
      other existing financial instruments make the recipients         6 February 1996, which was received at the Court Registry
      of Community subsidies subject to the review                     on 16 February 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
      procedures within the meaning of Directive                       BVBA Sanders v. ( 1 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance,
      89/665/EEC, even if they themselves are not contracting          VAT Administration, Registration and State Property, in the
      authorities within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive         person of the Collector of VAT, Roeselare VAT Collection
      93/37/EEC ?                                                      Office, and ( 2 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT
                                                                       Administration, Registration and State Property, in the
0 ) OJ No L 199 , 1993 , p . 54.                                       person of the Chief Inspector of VAT, Torhout 2 VAT
( 2 ) OJ No L 193 , 1993 , p . 5 .                                     Inspectorate on the following questions :
( 3 ) OJ No L 185 , 1988 , p . 9 .
                                                                       1 . Must Article 18 (4 ) of the Sixth VAT Directive be
                                                                           interpreted as permitting a Member State, instead of
                                                                           refunding to a taxable person a VAT credit for a given
                                                                           tax period, or carrying it forward to a subsequent tax
                                                                           period, to 'withhold' the same by way of protective
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                                attachment on the basis of an additional demand in
Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 January                     respect of an earlier tax period, where that additional
1996 in the case of Bayerische Hypotheken- und                             demand is contested in law and is thus not based on any
             Wechselbank AG v. Edgar Dietzinger                            definitive entitlement, and where the Member State has
                          ( Case C-45/96 )                                 not obtained authorization pursuant to Article 27 of the
                                                                           VAT Directive ?
                            ( 96/C 95/23 )
                                                                       2 . In the event that Question 1 is answered in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     affirmative :
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
( Federal Court of Justice ) of 11 January 1996, which was                 do the principle of proportionality enshrined in
received at the Court Registry on 15 February 1996 , for a                 Community law and Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Sixth VAT
preliminary ruling in the case of Bayerische Hypotheken                   Directive permit the Member State to provide :
und Wechselbank AG v. Edgar Dietzinger on the following
question :                                                                 ( 1 ) that the taxable person may contest the attachment
                                                                                ( as validated by the 'withholding' measure ) only by
where a contract of suretyship is concluded under German                         adducing evidence rebutting the allegations made
law between a financial institution and a natural person
                                                                                by the Treasury in the official report, and not by
                                                                                challenging the actual need for, and urgency of, that
who is not acting in that connection in the course of his trade
                                                                                measure ;
or profession, in order to secure a claim by the financial
institution against a third party in respect of a loan, is it              ( 2 ) that withholding may not be replaced by another
covered by the words 'contracts under which a trader                             form of security nor lifted pending the delivery of
supplies goods or services to a consumer' ( Article 1 ( 1 ) of                   final judgment on the contested demand for
Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to
                                                                                payment made by the Treasury ?
protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated
away from business premises, OJ No L 372 , 31 . 12 . 1985 ,
p. 31 )?
                                                                       Action brought on 21 February 1996 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Beslagrechter of                                    ( Case C-52/96 )
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Bruges, by order of that
court of 6 February 1996 in the case of BVBA Sanders                                              ( 96/C 95/25
v. ( 1 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT
Administration, Registration and State Property, in the                An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
person of the Collector of VAT, Roeselare VAT Collection               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Office, and ( 2 ) the Belgian State, Ministry of Finance, VAT          21 February 1996 by the Commission of the European
Administration, Registration and State Property, in the                Communities, represented by Julian Currall and F. Enrique
person of the Chief Inspector of VAT, Torhout 2 VAT                    Gonzalez Diaz, of its Legal Service, with an address for
                             Inspectorate                              service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez
                                                                       de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre ,
                          ( Case C-47/96 )
                                                                       Kirchberg.
                            ( 96/ C 95/24 )
                                                                       The Commission claims that the Court should :
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Beslagrechter ( judge             1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the national measures
hearing attachment proceedings ) of the Rechtbank van                      necessary to ensure that officials of the Community


title: Case T-558/11: Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2012 — Atlas v OHIM — Couleurs de Tollens (ARTIS) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ARTIS — Earlier national word mark ARTIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               12.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/36

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 November 2012 — Atlas v OHIM — Couleurs de Tollens (ARTIS)
   (Case T-558/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ARTIS - Earlier national word mark ARTIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 9/63
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Atlas sp. z o.o. (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Couleurs de Tollens (Clichy, France) (represented by J.-G. Monin, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 July 2011 (Case R 1253/2010-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Couleurs de Tollens-Agora and Atlas sp. z o.o.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Atlas sp. z o.o. to pay the costs, including those incurred by Couleurs de Tollens during the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 13, 14.1.2012.


title: Case T-162/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Branco v Commission (European Social Fund (ESF) — Reduction of financial assistance — Subcontracting — Reasonable time)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/34

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2006 — Branco v Commission
   (Case T-162/04) (1)

   (European Social Fund (ESF) - Reduction of financial assistance - Subcontracting - Reasonable time)
   (2006/C 331/75)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Eugénio Branco, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: B. Belchior, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and A. Weimar, Agents)
   Re:
   Action for annulment of the decision of the Commission of 8 August 2003 reducing the assistance of the European Social Fund (ESF) and, therefore, rejecting the application for payment of the balance of the assistance from the ESF, initially approved for operational program 87 03 01 P1.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.


title: Case C-116/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck by order of that Court of 25 March 2002 in the proceedings between Erich Gasser Gesellschaft m. b. H. and MISAT s. r. l.

text:
15.6.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 144/17
—     order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.                    foreign competitors. Those rules result in a situation
                                                                                whereby more waste is regarded as destined for disposal,
                                                                                so that more waste is presented to AVR Chemie for
                                                                                incineration.
                                                                           (1) OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1.
                                                                           (2) OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39.
                                                                           (3) OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     In cases in which 20 % of waste in the Netherlands can
      be re-used and, in the country of destination, a smaller
      proportion of the waste can be recovered, objections are             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
      systematically raised. That possibility is not provided for          richt Innsbruck by order of that Court of 25 March 2002
      either in Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 or in Directive 75/             in the proceedings between Erich Gasser Gesellschaft m.
      442/EEC. The Netherlands treats the extent of the recov-                                  b. H. and MISAT s. r. l.
      ery which can be achieved by means of the processing
      capacity in the Netherlands as a subjective criterion for
      the current application of the fifth indent of Article 7(4)                                   (Case C-116/02)
      of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93. It is not apparent from
      any of the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 that
      this constitutes the objective or scope of that regulation.                                   (2002/C 144/28)
      On the contrary, the fifth indent of Article 7(4) provides
      that the Member States are to carry out an individual test
      in respect of each request for export, in the course of
      which they are to consider in an objective manner — that             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      is to say, without regard to their own market situation —            European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
      the characteristics of that individual request.                      Innsbruck (Higher Regional Court, Innsbruck) of 25 March
                                                                           2002, received at the Court Registry on 2 April 2002, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Erich Gasser
                                                                           Gesellschaft m. b. H. and MISAT s. r. l. on the following
—     The Netherlands applies a criterion consisting of a                  questions:
      requirement for the calorific value of incineration of the
      waste coupled with its chlorine content, and on that basis           1.   May a court which refers questions to the Court of Justice
      draws the dividing line between recovery, with the main                   for a preliminary ruling do so purely on the basis of a
      use being fuel from hazardous waste, and definitive                       party’s (unrefuted) submissions, whether they have been
      disposal of hazardous waste. However, in accordance                       contested or not contested (on good grounds), or is it
      with the provisions of the regulation and of the directive,               first required to clarify those questions as regards the
      the question whether waste is to be regarded as destined                  facts by the taking of appropriate evidence (and if so, to
      for disposal or as destined for recovery depends chiefly                  what extent)?
      on the way in which the waste is processed. That is the
      position, in particular, as regards the drawing of a                 2.   May a court other than the court first seised, within the
      distinction between waste for disposal, in terms of                       meaning of the first paragraph of Article 21 of the
      point D10 in Annex II A of the directive, and waste for                   Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement
      recovery, in terms of point R9 in Annex II B. For that                    of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters [‘the
      reason, it is necessary to fulfil the criteria connected with             Brussels Convention’], review the jurisdiction of the court
      the processing installation or the relevant use; and the                  first seised if the second court has exclusive jurisdiction
      type and nature of contamination of the waste itself are                  pursuant to an agreement conferring jurisdiction under
      not relevant criteria for distinguishing between waste                    Article 17 of the Brussels Convention, or must the agreed
      destined for disposal and waste destined for recovery.                    second court proceed in accordance with Article 21 of
                                                                                the Brussels Convention notwithstanding the agreement
                                                                                conferring jurisdiction?
—     The Commission considers that the rules contained in                 3.   Can the fact that court proceedings in a Contracting State
      Chapter 8.3 of Part I and Chapter 18 of Part II of the                    take an unjustifiably long time (for reasons largely
      Multi-annual Plan concerning hazardous waste for the                      unconnected with the conduct of the parties), so that
      period 1997-2007 are inconsistent with the obligations                    material detriment may be caused to one party, have the
      imposed on the Netherlands by Article 86 EC, inasmuch                     consequence that the court other than the court first
      as the effect of those rules is to protect and strengthen                 seised, within the meaning of Article 21, is not allowed
      the position of AVR Chemie to the detriment of its                        to proceed in accordance with that provision?
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/18              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   15.6.2002
4.   Do the legal consequences provided for by Italian Law                 with a moisture content of over 30 % and an average
     No 89 of 24 March 2001 justify the application of                     moisture content, on entry to the processing undertaking,
     Article 21 of the Brussels Convention even if a party is at           of at least 35 % measured at most every ten days
     risk of detriment as a consequence of the possible                    compatible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC,
     excessive length of proceedings before the Italian court              Article 34.2(2) EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95
     and therefore, as suggested in Question 3, it would not               of 21 February 1995 and Commission Regulation (EC)
     actually be appropriate to proceed in accordance with                 No 785/95 of 6 April 1995.
     Article 21?
                                                                      3.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
5.   Under what conditions must the court other than the                   the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the
     court first seised refrain from applying Article 21 of the            condition that the fodder must be kept at the processing
     Brussels Convention?                                                  plant for a maximum of 24 hours before it is processed
                                                                           compatible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC,
6.   What course of action must the court follow if, in the                Article 34.2(2) EC, Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95
     circumstances described in Question 3, it is not allowed              of 21 February 1995 and Commission Regulation (EC)
     to apply Article 21 of the Brussels Convention?                       No 785/95 of 6 April 1995?
Should it be necessary in any event, even in the circumstances        4.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
described in Question 3, to proceed in accordance with                     the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the
Article 21 of the Brussels Convention, there is no need to                 condition that the fodder must come from parcels situated
answer Questions 4, 5 and 6.                                               at a maximum distance of 100 kilometres from the
                                                                           corresponding processing plant unless, in the latter case,
                                                                           a greater distance may be justified by the use of the
                                                                           appropriate specialised transport compatible with
                                                                           Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC, Article 34.2(2) EC,
                                                                           Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995
                                                                           and Commission Regulation (EC) No 785/95 of 6 April
                                                                           1995?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supre-
mo, Sala de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección: Cuar-
ta by order of that Court of 6 February 2002 in the case              (1) OJ L 063 of 21.3.1995, p. 1.
of Industrias de Deshidratación Agrı́cola, S.A. against              (2) OJ L 079 of 7.4.1995, p. 5.
                  Administración del Estado
                        (Case C-118/02)
                        (2002/C 144/29)
                                                                      Action brought on 5 April 2002 by European Parliament
                                                                             against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo, Sala
de lo Contencioso-administrativo, Sección: Cuarta (Supreme                                   (Case C-123/02)
Court — Chamber for contentious administrative matters,
Fourth Chamber) of 6 February 2002, received at the Court                                     (2002/C 144/30)
Registry on 29 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Industrias de Deshidratación Agrı́cola, S.A. against
Administración del Estado on the following questions:
                                                                      An action against Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance (RSA)
1.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
                                                                      was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the
                                                                      Communities on 5 April 2002 by the European Parliament,
     condition that the fodder for drying is delivered to
                                                                      represented by D. Petersheim, O. Caisou-Rousseau and
     processing undertakings chopped, and not baled compat-
                                                                      M. Ecker, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     ible with Article 249(2) EC, Article 10 EC, the second
                                                                      Luxembourg.
     subparagraph of Article 34(2) EC, Council Regulation
     (EC) No 603/95 (1) of 21 February 1995 and Commission
     Regulation (EC) No 785/95 (2) of 6 April 1995?
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
2.   Is a national provision which makes the grant of aid for
     the drying of green or fresh fodder subject to the               1.   declare null and void the terminations of guarantee
     condition that the fodder must reach the processing plant             notified by RSA on 9 October and 6 November 2001;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber, of the French Republic by judgment of 13 June 1995 in the case of Parodi SCI v. Bank H. Albert de Bary et Cie (Case C-222/95)

text:
12 . 8 . 95              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 208 / 17
activity carried out as a self-employed person ( travailleur             3 July 1995 by the Council of the European Union,
independant) by a national of a Member State ?                           represented by Jean-Paul Jacque, Director of the Legal
                                                                         Service, and Felix Van Craeyenest and Yves Cretien, Legal
(!) OJ No L 230 , 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .                                Advisors , acting as Agents , with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Bruno Eynard , European
                                                                         Investment Bank, Kirchberg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
of the French Republic by judgment of 13 June 1995 in the
      case of Parodi SCI v. Bank H. Albert de Bary et Cie                The applicant claims that the Court should :
                          ( Case C-222/95 )
                             ( 95 /C 208/34 )                            1 . annul the act of the President of the European
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        Parliament of 26 April 1 995 declaring the final adoption
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour de                             of amending and supplementary budget No 1 1995 ;
Cassation, Commercial, Financial and Economic Chamber,
of the French Republic of 13 June 1995 which was received
at the Court Registry on 26 June 1995 , for a preliminary                2 . consequently, declare that budget, as adopted by the
ruling in the case of Parodi SCI v. Bank H. Albert de Bary et                 European Parliament on the same day, invalid ;
Cie .
The Court of Cassation refers the following question to the
Court of Justice of the European Communities for a                       3 . state that the acts implementing the budget which have
preliminary ruling:                                                           been adopted up until the date when the judgment is
                                                                              delivered are retained in their entirety;
as regards the period preceding the entry into force of
Council Directive 89/646/EEC ( 1 ) of 15 December 1989 on
the coordination of laws , regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the taking up and pursuit of the                  4 . order the European Parliament to pay the costs .
business of credit institutions and amending Directive
77/780/EEC ( 2 ), do Articles 59 and 61 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty
have to be interpreted as precluding national legislation
requiring a licence in order to supply banking services , in             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
particular in order to grant a mortgage loan, where the bank
concerned is established in another Member State where it
has been granted a licence ?                                             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
                                                                         relied on in Case C-41 /95 ('). The action concerns only
 (!) OJ No L 386 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 1 .                              budgetary headings Bl-500 (Accompanying measures —
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 322 , 17 . 12 . 1977, p . 30 .
                                                                         former system ), Bl-5010 ( Early retirement ) and Bl-5012
                                                                          ( Afforestation ). The Council maintains that the three
                                                                         headings which the Parliament reclassified by voting under
Action brought on 3 July 1995 by the Council of the                      the budgetary procedure for the adoption of ASB No 1 / 1995
        European Union against the European Parliament                   are in fact compulsory expenditure , because those three
                                                                         headings are covered by the agricultural guideline by virtue
                           ( Case C-230/95 )
                                                                         of Community legislative measures .
                              ( 95/C 208/35 )
 An action against the European Parliament was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on               (M OJ No C 87, 8 . 4 . 1995 , p . 6 .
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 Extension of the composition of the Chambers for the                     judicial vacation the oath-taking ceremony before the Court
                       judicial year 1994/95                              of Justice for new members of the Court of First Instance
                              ( 95/C 208/36 )                             could not take place until after the judicial vacation and that
                                                                          consequently, in accordance with the third paragraph of
                                                                          Article 5 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, the third
  At the plenary conference held on 6 July 1995 the Court of              paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Statute of the Court of
  First Instance took formal note of the fact that owing to the           Justice, the third paragraph of Article 5 of the EAEC Statute


title: Case T-694/14: Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — EREF v Commission (Action for annulment — Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 — Association — Members not directly concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/55

         Order of the General Court of 23 November 2015 — EREF v Commission
   (Case T-694/14) (1)

   ((Action for annulment - Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020 - Association - Members not directly concerned - Inadmissibility))
   (2016/C 038/72)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: U. Prall, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, K. Herrmann and R. Sauer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   ACTION for the annulment of the Communication from the Commission of 28 June 2014, entitled ‘Guidelines on State aid for environmental protection and energy 2014-2020’ (OJ 2014 C 200, p. 1), concerning the assessment criteria of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid for energy from renewable sources.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               European Renewable Energies Federation (EREF) shall pay its own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case T-741/14: Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Hersill v EUIPO — KCI Licensing (VACUP) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark VACUP — Earlier EU word marks MINIVAC and V.A.C. — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               24.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/15

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 March 2017 — Hersill v EUIPO — KCI Licensing (VACUP)
   (Case T-741/14) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark VACUP - Earlier EU word marks MINIVAC and V.A.C. - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 129/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Hersill, SL (Móstoles, Spain) (represented by: M. Aznar Alonso and P. Koch Moreno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: KCI Licensing, Inc. (San Antonio, Texas, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 August 2014 (Case R 1520/2013-2), relating to opposition proceedings between KCI Licensing and Hersill.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 August 2014 (Case R 1520/2013-2);

               2.

               Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Hersill, SL;

               3.

               Orders KCI Licensing, Inc. to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 448, 15.12.2014.


title: Case C-204/10 P: Appeal brought on 28 April 2010 by Enercon GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2010 in Case T-472/07: Enercon GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks & Designs)

text:
               3.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/21

         Appeal brought on 28 April 2010 by Enercon GmbH against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 3 February 2010 in Case T-472/07: Enercon GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks & Designs)
   (Case C-204/10 P)
   2010/C 179/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Enercon GmbH (represented by: J. Mellor, Barrister, R. Böhm, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hasbro Inc.

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               allow the Appeal against the Judgment of the General Court and annul the Judgment of the General Court, to annul the decision of the fourth Board of Appeal and, as appropriate, the decision of the Opposition Division;

               —

               (as appropriate) remit this case to the Office for a fresh consideration of the issues on this Opposition;

               —

               order the intervener and the Office to pay the Appellant's costs of this Appeal

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant submits that the General Court failed to recognise the errors in the decision of the Board of Appeal, based, as it was, on the illegitimate decision of the Opposition Division. In particular there was a complete failure to recognise (a) that the Medion (1) judgment concerned an exceptional situation in which the usual rule that the average consumer normally perceives a trade mark as a matter of overall impression is displaced but (b) no circumstances existed in this case sufficient to justify such an exceptional approach. No part of the earlier mark in this case had an ‘independent distinctive role’.
   Furthermore the Appellant submits that, due to the incorrect application of a Medion type principle at the earlier stage of the assessment of similarity, no proper consideration was given to the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2004, p. 31


title: Case C-515/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘4finance’ UAB v Valstybinę vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnybą, Valstybinę mokesčių inspekciją prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — Pyramid promotional scheme — Whether the consideration paid by consumers in order to receive compensation is relevant — Interpretation of the concept of ‘consideration’ )

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 3 April 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘4finance’ UAB v Valstybinę vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnybą, Valstybinę mokesčių inspekciją prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-515/12) (1)

   ((Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - Pyramid promotional scheme - Whether the consideration paid by consumers in order to receive compensation is relevant - Interpretation of the concept of ‘consideration’))
   2014/C 159/08
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant:‘4finance’ UAB

      Defendants: Valstybinę vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnybą, Valstybinę mokesčių inspekciją prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Interpretation of point 14 of Annex I to Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) — Pyramid promotional scheme enabling a consumer, after giving nominal consideration, to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the entry of other consumers rather than from the sale or consumption of products — Relevance of the amount of the consideration to classification of the scheme as a pyramid promotional scheme — Significance of the extent to which the compensation is financed by consideration from new consumers — Requirement that that compensation be financed entirely or to a large extent by the contributions of the new members

      Operative part of the judgment

   Annex I, point 14, of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’), must be interpreted as meaning that a pyramid promotional scheme constitutes an unfair commercial practice only where such a scheme requires the consumer to give financial consideration, regardless of its amount, for the opportunity to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than from the sale or consumption of products.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-451/17: Action brought on 20 July 2017 — Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie v Commission

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/15

         Action brought on 20 July 2017 — Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie v Commission
   (Case T-451/17)
   (2017/C 318/21)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Verband der Deutschen Biokraftstoffindustrie e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: R. Stein, P. Friton and H.-J. Prieß, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission Communication under register number BK/abd/ener.c.1(2017)2122195, insofar as it prescribes on page 5 the use of an emissions factor of 99,57 g CO2eq per MJ of methanol for the calculation of the greenhouse gas emissions of biodiesel; and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: infringement of Directive 2009/28/EC (1) by reason of deviation from the specified calculation methodology

                           —

                           The applicant claims that, under Article 19(1)(b), the methodology laid down in Annex V, Part C, to Directive 2009/28/EC is to be used where actual values are referred to in order to calculate an emissions factor. In accordance with Annex V, Part C, point 13, to Directive 2009/28/EC, emissions from the fuel in use (eu) are taken to be zero for biofuels and bioliquids. The contested communication requires the voluntary certification systems to use a calculation deviating from Annex V, Part C, point 13, to Directive 2009/28/EC, which also includes emissions from fuel use, within a set deadline.

                           —

                           The deviation from Annex V, Part C, point 13, to Directive 2009/28/EC infringes the procedural requirements of that directive. An adjustment of the methodology in Annex V to the directive at all times requires, in accordance with the second sentence of Article 19(7) of the directive, compliance with the procedure set out in Article 25(4) of the directive. That provision in turn refers to Article 5a(1) to (4) and Article 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC, (2) having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof, according to which a Regulatory Procedure with Scrutiny Committee is to be convened and review by the European Parliament and Council must take place. The form of an informal communication at short notice should not have been chosen.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the EU-law principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations by the setting of an unreasonably short transitional period, expiring on 1 September 2017, for the certification systems to implement the calculation methodology which is contrary to the directive

                           —

                           The protection of legitimate expectations is not guaranteed, since the procedural deadlines and deadlines for transposition are unreasonably short.

                           —

                           There is an infringement of the principle of legal certainty due to the unreasonable difficulties in implementation.

      (1)  Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC (OJ 2009 L 140, p. 16).

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


title: Case C-31/08: Action brought on 25 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/23

         Action brought on 25 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-31/08)
   (2008/C 79/39)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2006/51/EC of 6 June 2006 (1) amending for the purposes of adapting to technical progress Annex I to Directive 2005/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2) and Annexes IV and V to Directive 2005/78/EC (3) as regards requirements for the emission control monitoring system for use in vehicles and exemptions for gas engines and, in any event, by failing to communicate such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of that directive;

               —

               order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2006/51/EC expired on 8 November 2006.

      (1)  OJ L 152 of 7.6.2006, p. 11.

      (2)  OJ L 275 of 20.10.2005, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ L 313 of 29.11.2005, p. 1.


title: Case C-497/99 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 1999 by Irish Sugar plc against the judgment delivered on 7 October 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-228/97 between Irish Sugar plc and the Commission of the European Communities

text:
4.3.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 63/17
Appeal brought on 21 December 1999 by Irish Sugar plc                   2) Regarding the second limb of the applicant’s first plea, the
against the judgment delivered on 7 October 1999 by the                     Court of First Instance errs in law by holding that no
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         infringement of the applicant’s defence rights occurred.
European Communities in case T-228/97 (1) between Irish
Sugar plc and the Commission of the European Communi-
                               ties                                         Because the definition of the relevant markets in the legal
                                                                            assessment of the Decision differed from the statement of
                                                                            objections and from previous decisional practice, the
                       (Case C-497/99 P)                                    abuses were not assessed in their proper context and the
                                                                            applicant was deprived of its right to comment fully
                                                                            thereon during the administrative procedure.
                         (2000/C 63/31)
                                                                        3) With respect to the third limb of the applicant’s first plea,
                                                                            the Court of First Instance applied the wrong test, viz. the
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 October 1999                  collective dominance test developed under the merger
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                  regulation where a structural assessment, using a prospec-
European Communities in case T-228/97 between Irish Sugar                   tive analysis of the reference market, is required. This is
plc and the Commission of the European Communities,                         not the correct test for retrospective behavioural assess-
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                     ment under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81
Communities on 21 December 1999 by Irish Sugar plc, a                       EC).
company incorporated under Irish law, represented by Alex-
ander Böhlke, of the Brussels and Frankfurt am Main Bars,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Victor Elvinger, 31, Rue d’Eich.                                        (1) OJ C 318 of 18.10.1997, p. 29.
The Appellant asks the Court:
— that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    7 October 1999 in Case T-228/97 Irish Sugar v. Com-
    mission be set aside in so far as it dismisses the applicant’s
    action (paragraph 3 of the operative part) and orders the
    applicant to pay its own costs and two thirds of the
    Commission’s costs (paragraph 4 of the operative part);             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste Ge-
                                                                        richtshof, Austria by order of that court of 9 November
                                                                        1999 in the case of Margrith Petersilge née Lackner against
— that Commission Decision 97/624/EC of 14 May 1997                      Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
    relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 86 of the EC
    Treaty (IV/34.621, 35.059/F-3 — Irish Sugar plc), (OJ
    1997 L 258, p. 1), in its form following from the                                           (Case C-511/99)
    aforementioned judgment, be annulled;
                                                                                (2000/C 63/32)
— that the Commission pay the remainder of the costs of
    Case T-228/97 and those of this appeal.
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by order of the Oberste Gerichtshof,
                                                                        Austria (Supreme Court, Austria) of 9 November 1999,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         received at the Court Registry on 28 December 1999, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Margrith Petersilge née
                                                                        Lackner against Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen
1) In dealing with the first limb of the applicant’s first plea,        Wirtschaft on the following question:
    the Court of First Instance, at one and the same time,
    rejected the argument that the operative part of the
    Commission Decision of 14 May 1997 was incomplete                   On a proper construction, does Article 10(a) of Council
    and the Commission’s defence that the Decision, for                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on the application of social
    the period before February 1990, established both an                security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
    individual dominant position of the applicant and, in               persons and to members of their families moving within the
    the alternative, a joint dominant position with Sugar               Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
    Distributors Ltd (SDL).                                             (EEC) No 2001/83 (2) of 2 June 1983, as subsequently amended
                                                                        by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 (3) of 30 April 1992,
                                                                        read in conjunction with Annex IIa, encompass the care
    The rejected arguments being mutually exclusive, the                allowance provided for by the Bundespflegegeldgesetz (Austri-
    Court’s position lacks in logic and breaches the rule of law.       an Federal Care Allowance Act) and does such care allowance


title: Case T-262/00: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — La Vigile San Marco v Commission (Action for annulment — State aid — Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia — Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market and requiring the recovery of aid paid — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               9.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/19

         Order of the General Court of 22 January 2013 — La Vigile San Marco v Commission
   (Case T-262/00) (1)

   (Action for annulment - State aid - Relief from social security contributions for firms in Venice and Chioggia - Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market and requiring the recovery of aid paid - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 71/29
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: La Vigile San Marco SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: A. Vianello, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, Agent, assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Italian Republic (initially represented by: U. Leanza, then by I. Braguglia, then by R. Adam, and finally by I. Bruni, Agents, assisted by G. Aiello and P. Gentili, avvocati dello Stato)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/394/EC of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (OJ 2000 L 150, p. 50).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The objection of inadmissibility raised by the European Commission is joined to the substance;

               2.

               The action is dismissed as being, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly lacking any foundation in law;

               3.

               La Vigile San Marco SpA shall bear the Commission’s costs in addition to its own costs;

               4.

               The Italian Republic shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 9.12.2000.


title: Case C-424/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — SC Fatorie SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bihor (Request for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Reverse charge procedure — Right to deduct — Payment of the tax to the service supplier — Omission of mandatory particulars — Payment of VAT not due — Loss of the right to deduct — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Principle of legal certainty)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/11

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Oradea — Romania) — SC Fatorie SRL v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bihor
   (Case C-424/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Directive 2006/112/EC - Reverse charge procedure - Right to deduct - Payment of the tax to the service supplier - Omission of mandatory particulars - Payment of VAT not due - Loss of the right to deduct - Principle of fiscal neutrality - Principle of legal certainty)
   2014/C 93/17
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Oradea

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Fatorie SRL

      Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bihor

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Apel Oradea — Interpretation of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — Loss of the right to deduct VAT on the grounds that there was no mention in the invoice of the application of the reverse charge regime — Principle of legal certainty — Decision ordering payment of the amount of VAT wrongly deducted and of interest and of default penalties after an irrevocable decision recognising the right to deduct — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Payment of the VAT incorrectly indicated in an invoice by a third party — No steps taken by the tax authorities with a view to correction of the invoice which it is impossible to put in order ex post.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In a transaction subject to the reverse charge regime, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principle of fiscal neutrality do not preclude the recipient of the services from being deprived of the right to deduct the value added tax which he paid when that tax was not due to the service supplier on the basis of an incorrectly drawn up invoice, even where the correction of that error is impossible because that supplier is insolvent;

               2.

               The principle of legal certainty does not preclude an administrative practice of the national tax authorities whereby, within a limitation period, they revoke a decision by which they granted the taxable person the right to deduct value added tax and then, following a fresh investigation, order him to pay that tax together with default interest.

      (1)  OJ C 379, 8.12.2012.


title: Case C-501/14: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — EL-EM-2001 Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Road transport — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 — Article 10(3) — Articles 18 and 19 — Fine imposed on the driver — Measures necessary to the execution of the penalty taken against the transport company — Immobilisation of the vehicle)

text:
               19.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 475/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 October 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Szegedi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — EL-EM-2001 Ltd v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-501/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Article 10(3) - Articles 18 and 19 - Fine imposed on the driver - Measures necessary to the execution of the penalty taken against the transport company - Immobilisation of the vehicle))
   (2016/C 475/02)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Szegedi közigazgatási és munkaügyi bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: EL-EM-2001 Ltd

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Dél-alföldi Regionális Vám- és Pénzügyőri Főigazgatósága

      Operative part of the judgment

   Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which authorises, as a precautionary measure, the immobilisation of a vehicle owned by a transport undertaking in a situation where, firstly, the driver of that vehicle, employed by the undertaking, drove it in breach of the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport and, secondly, the competent national authority did not establish the liability of that undertaking, since such a precautionary measure does not meet the requirements of the principle of proportionality.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


11 . 11 . 95          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 299/ 19
The applicant submits that the Council 's refusal violates the               Removal from the register of Case T- 112/92 ( ] )
fundamental rights of access to the European Union                                                  ( 95 /C 299/33 )
Institutions ' documents, as well as the principle of
protection of legitimate expectations and Articles 4(1 ) and                          (Language of the case: English )
4 ( 2 ) of Council Decision 93/73 1 /EC inasmuch as it
wrongfully applies the criteria for refusal laid down in said         By order of 11 July 1995 the President of the Fourth
provisions . It considers furthermore that the Council 's             Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
refusal should be annulled on the ground of its failure to            Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
state reasons for the refusal .
                                                                      T- 1 1 2/92 : John Cooney v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Comm unities .
                                                                      (') Q | No C : 34 , 6 . 2 . 1 993 .
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 28 September 1995                                     Removal from the register of Case T-425/93 (')
in Case T-95 /94 : Chambre Syndicale Nationale des                                                  ( 95 /C 299/34 )
Entreprises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
Brink's France SARL v. Commission of the European                                     (Language of the case: English )
                       Communities ( ' )
(State aid — Complaint by a competitor — Failure to initiate          By order of 9 August 1995 the President of the First
the investigation procedure — Right to a fair hearing —               Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
                    Action for annulment)                             Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                          ( 95 /C 299/32 )                            from the register of Case T-425/93 : David Wilcox v.
                                                                      Council of the European Union and Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities .
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      (') OJ No C : 2.38 , 2 . 9 . 1993 .
In Case T-95/94 : Chambre Syndicale Nationale des
Entreprises de Transport de Fonds et Valeurs ( Sytraval ) and
Brink 's France SARL, represented by Jean-Michel Payre, of
the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grande-Rue , v.                            Removal from the register of Case T-430/93 ( )
Commission of the European Communities ( agents : Michel                                            ( 95 /C 299/35 )
Nolin and Ben Smulders ), supported by the French Republic
( agents : Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc Belorgey ) —                              (Language of the case: Erench)
application for the annulment of the Commission decision
of 31 December 1993 rejecting the applicants ' request for a          By order of 11 August 1995 the President of the First
declaration by the Commission that the French Republic                Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
has infringed Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty by granting            Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
aid to Securipost SA — the Court of First Instance                    from the register of Case T-430/93 : Jean Trelhu v. Council
( Fourth Chamber, extended composition ), composed of                 of the European Union and Commission of the European
K. Lenaerts , President, and R. Schintgen , C. P. Briet,              Communities .
R. Garcia-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 September 1995 , in             (') OJ No C 54 , 25 . 5 . 1993 .
which it :
 1 . annuls the Commission decision of 31 December 1993
     rejecting the applicants ' request for a declaration by the
     Commission that the French Republic has infringed                                   Removal from the register of
     Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty by granting aid to                         Joined Cases T-436/93 to T -441 /93 (')
     Securipost;                                                                                ( 95 /C 299/36 )
2 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay                             (Language of the case: English)
     the costs of the applicants;
                                                                      By order of 12 July 1995 the President of the Fourth
 3 . orders the Erench Republic to bear its own costs .               Chamber ( extended composition ) of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
 (') O J No C 103 , 11.4 . 1994 .
                                                                      from the register of Joined Cases T-436/93 to T-441 /93 :
                                                                      British Petroleum Company pic , Barclays Bank pic , Flanson
                                                                      pic , Lucas Industries Public Limited Company , Mars UK
                                                                       Limited , Mars G.B. Limited , Intercontinental Trading


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 October 2002 in Case T-360/00: Dart Industries Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — "UltraPlus" — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character, distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
21.12.2002              EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 323/33
—      in Case T-330/00, for annulment of the decisions of                   composed of: R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and
       16 March 2000 and 22 February 2000 of the authority                   A. W. H. Meij, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
       empowered to conclude contracts not to accept the                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 October 2002, in which
       respective candidatures of Mr Cocchi and Mrs Hainz for                it:
       the posts declared to be vacant by vacancy notices COM/
       R/5530/00 and COM/R/5500/00 respectively or, in the
                                                                             1.     Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
       alternative, annulment of those vacancy notices and for
                                                                                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
       compensation in respect of the harm allegedly suffered
                                                                                Designs) of 22 September 2000 (Case R 278/2000-1);
       by the applicants;
—      in Case T-114/01, for annulment of the decisions of                   2.     Orders the defendant to pay the costs.
       appointment adopted by the authority empowered to
       conclude contracts under the recruitment procedures
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 45 of 10.2.2001.
       initiated by vacancy notices COM/R/5530/00 and COM/
       R/5500/00 and for compensation in respect of the harn
       allegedly suffered by the applicants,
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of
J.D. Cooke, President of the Chamber, R. García-Valdecasas
and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 October 2002 in which                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
it:
                                                                                of 9 October 2002
1.     Dismisses the actions;
2.     Orders all the parties to bear their own costs.                       in Case T-36/01: Glaverbel v Office for Harmonisation in
                                                                             the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
( 1) OJ C 372, 23.12.2000, and C 227, 11.8.2001.
                                                                             (Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 —
                                                                             Design applied to the surface of goods — Absolute ground
                                                                               for refusal — Distinctive character — Right to a hearing)
                                                                                (2002/C 323/53)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                     (Language of the case: English)
                         of 9 October 2002
                                                                             In Case T-36/01, Glaverbel, established in Brussels (Belgium),
in Case T-360/00: Dart Industries Inc. v Office for Har-                     represented by S. Möbus, lawyer, v Office for Harmonisation
monisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                           in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
                        Designs) (OHIM) ( 1)                                 (Agents: A. di Carlo and G. Schneider): Action brought against
                                                                             the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
(Community trade mark — ‘UltraPlus’ — Absolute grounds                       Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
for refusal — Descriptive character, distinctive character —                 Designs) of 30 November 2000 (Case R 137/2000-1), the
      Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)                   Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of:
                                                                             R. M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A. W. H. Meij,
                                                                             Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar,
                           (2002/C 323/52)                                   has given a judgment on 9 October 2002, in which it:
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                             1.     Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
                                                                                for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) of 30 November 2000 (Case R 137/2000-
In Case T-360/00, Dart Industries Inc., established in Orlando,                     1);
Florida (United States of America), represented by J. Gray and
K.-U. Jonas, lawyers, v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal             2.     Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: V. Melgar):                         by the applicant.
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 September 2000 (Case R
278/2000-1) on the registration of ‘UltraPlus’ as a Community
trade mark, the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber),


title: Action brought on 21 December 1998 by British Sugar plc against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-204/98)

text:
C 48/30                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
Ð the applicant had a legitimate expectation that the                  Ð in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4, of the
     fullness of its cooperation would be taken into                        Decision or reduce the fine; and
     account in the level of fine imposed;
                                                                       Ð order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.
Ð the Commission infringed Article 190 of the EC
     Treaty by failing to state adequate reasons for its view
     that the applicant did not maintain continuous and                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     complete       cooperation     with     the    Commission
     throughout the investigation; and
                                                                       The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission
                                                                       Decision of 14 October 1998 relating to a proceeding
Ð in the absence of adequate explicit reasoning, the                   pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (1).
     implicit reasons for the Commission's view that the
     applicant did not maintain continuous and complete
     cooperation with the Commission throughout the                    The applicant challenges the contested decision on the
     investigation appears to be the alleged retraction by             following grounds:
     the applicant of statements made earlier in the
     proceeding. The applicant made no retractions of
     earlier statements; what the Commission apparently                Ð The Decision is based on an incorrect and incomplete
     regards as retractions' were in fact no more than                     assessment of the facts and vitiated by manifest error
     corrections or clarifications of the Commission's                      of law.
     interpretation of the facts; the applicant was entitled
     to make these clarifications, and could not thereby be
     considered not to be cooperating with the
     Commission.                                                       Ð By failing to address fully the submissions and
                                                                            evidence of British Sugar and of the other addressees
                                                                            of the Decision and by failing to adduce evidence
(1) Commission Notice on the non-imposition or reduction of                 which supports its contentions regarding the
    fines in Cartel Cases (OJ C 207, 18.7.1996).                            application of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty, the
                                                                            Commission has infringed essential procedural
                                                                            requirements.
                                                                       Ð The Decision fails to exhibit reasoning of the requisite
                                                                            standard under Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
Action brought on 21 December 1998 by British Sugar plc
   against the Commission of the European Communities                  (1) See also Cases T-202/98 Tate & Lyle v. Commission and
                                                                           T-207/98 Napier Brown & Company Ltd. v. Commission.
                         (Case T-204/98)
                          (1999/C 48/63)
                 (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       Action brought on 23 December 1998 by Napier Brown
                                                                       & Company Limited against the Commission of the
An action against the Commission of the European                                          European Communities
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 21 December                                           (Case T-207/98)
1998 by British Sugar plc, represented by Thomas Sharpe
                                                                                (1999/C 48/64)
QC, Daniel Jowell, Rae Lindsay and Alex Nourry, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 23 December
Ð annul in its entirety Commission Decision of                         1998 by Napier Brown & Company Limited, represented
     14 October 1998 in Case IV7F-3/33.708-British Sugar               by Diana Guy, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     plc relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC           at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt of Bonn & Schmitt, 7
     Treaty;                                                           Val St Croix.