title: Case T-365/02: Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Muswellbrook Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
22.2.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 44/35
of the European Communities on 5 December 2002 by                         Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Muswellbrook
Muswellbrook Limited, established in Dublin (Ireland), rep-               Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the
resented by J. Casulá Oliver, lawyer.                                                          Internal Market (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-365/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (2003/C 44/67)
—     declare incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on
      the Community trade mark, in particular Article 15(2)(a)                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
      and/or Article 42(2) and (3) thereof, the decision of the
      First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 30 September
      2002 in case No R 73/2000-1, inasmuch as it declares
      that the opponent has failed to prove genuine use in the
      Community of the Spanish trade mark No 88222 to                     An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
      distinguish ready-to-wear and other items of clothing in            Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
      Class 25 during the five years preceding the publication            of the European Communities on 5 December 2002 by
      of the application for a Community trade mark;                      Muswellbrook Limited, established in Dublin (Ireland), rep-
                                                                          resented by J. Casulá Oliver, lawyer.
—     annul that decision in its entirety;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     agree to vary that decision so as to declare that an
      assessment of and a ruling on the merits of the opposition          —     declare incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on
      to registration of Community trade mark No 277889 is                      the Community trade mark, in particular Article 15(2)(a)
      appropriate, to which end the Court’s judgment should                     and/or Article 42(2) and (3) thereof, the decision of the
      declare that Community trade mark No 277889 is                            First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 30 September
      refused, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the               2002 in case No R 833/1999-1, inasmuch as it declares
      First Board of Appeal of the OHIM;                                        that the opponent has failed to prove genuine use in the
                                                                                Community of the Spanish trade mark No 88222 to
                                                                                distinguish ready-to-wear and other items of clothing in
—     order the defendant and, where appropriate, the inter-                    Class 25 during the five years preceding the publication
      vener to pay all the costs of the proceedings and those                   of the application for a Community trade mark;
      incurred at the administrative stages of the opposition
      and appeal proceedings.
                                                                          —     annul that decision in its entirety;
                                                                          —     agree to vary that decision so as to declare that an
                                                                                assessment of and a ruling on the merits of the opposition
                                                                                to registration of Community trade mark No 277731 is
                                                                                appropriate, to which end the Court’s judgment should
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 declare that Community trade mark No 277731 is
                                                                                refused, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the
                                                                                First Board of Appeal of the OHIM;
The applicant seeking the Community trade mark, the pro-                  —     order the defendant and, where appropriate, the inter-
prietor of the mark cited in opposition, the tenor of the                       vener to pay all the costs of the proceedings and those
decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal                    incurred at the administrative stages of the opposition
and the pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                   and appeal proceedings.
in Case T-362/02 (MUSWELLBROOK LIMITED v OHIM).
The Community trade mark in respect of which registration is              Pleas in law and main arguments
sought is the mixed mark ‘NIKE’ with ‘swoosh’ graphic —
application No 277889 in respect of goods in Class 25
‘clothing, footwear and headgear’.                                        The applicant seeking the Community trade mark, the pro-
                                                                          prietor of the mark cited in opposition, the tenor of the
                                                                          decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal
                                                                          and the pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                          in Case T-362/02 (MUSWELLBROOK LIMITED v OHIM).
 ---pagebreak--- C 44/36               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     22.2.2003
The Community trade mark in respect of which registration is              —     order the defendant and, where appropriate, the inter-
sought is the word mark ‘NIKE F.I.T.’ — application                             vener to pay all the costs of the proceedings and those
No 277731 in respect of goods in Class 25 ‘clothing, footwear                   incurred at the administrative stages of the opposition
and headgear’.                                                                  and appeal proceedings.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant seeking the Community trade mark, the pro-
                                                                          prietor of the mark cited in opposition, the tenor of the
                                                                          decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal
Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Muswellbrook                         and the pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       in Case T-362/02 (MUSWELLBROOK LIMITED v OHIM).
                    Internal Market (OHIM)
                                                                          The Community trade mark in respect of which registration is
                        (Case T-366/02)                                   sought is the mixed mark ‘TRIAX NIKE SERIES’ with graphic
                                                                          — application No 252411 in respect of goods in Class 25
                                                                          ‘clothing, footwear and headgear’.
                         (2003/C 44/68)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          Action brought on 10 December 2002 by Bernard Barbé
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                           against the European Parliament
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 5 December 2002 by
Muswellbrook Limited, established in Dublin (Ireland), rep-                                       (Case T-371/02)
resented by J. Casulá Oliver, lawyer.
                                                                                (2003/C 44/69)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
—    declare incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on
     the Community trade mark, in particular Article 15(2)(a)
     and/or Article 42(2) and (3) and/or Article 8(1)(b) thereof,
     the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of             An action against the European Parliament was brought before
     30 September 2002 in case No R 880/1999-1, inasmuch                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
     as it declares that the opponent has failed to prove                 10 December 2002 by Bernard Barbé, resident at Luxembourg,
     genuine use in the Community of the Spanish trade mark               represented by Alain Loraing, lawyer, with an address for
     No 88222 to distinguish ready-to-wear and other items                service in Luxembourg.
     of clothing in Class 25 during the five years preceding
     the publication of the application for a Community trade
     mark;                                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul that decision in its entirety;                                 —     rule that the Parliament wrongly has not passed on to
                                                                                him the deductions from Mrs Boez’s salary which fell due
                                                                                up until 11 November 1998;
—    agree to vary that decision so as to declare that an
     assessment of and a ruling on the merits of the opposition
     to registration of Community trade mark No 252411 is                 —     order payment to him of the deductions made in respect
     appropriate, to which end the Court’s judgment should                      of the months from March 1998 to November 1998
     declare that Community trade mark No 252411 is                             inclusive;
     refused, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the
     First Board of Appeal of the OHIM;                                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-138/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), lodged on 21 March 2011 — Compass-Datenbank GmbH v Republik Österreich

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), lodged on 21 March 2011 — Compass-Datenbank GmbH v Republik Österreich
   (Case C-138/11)
   2011/C 186/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Compass-Datenbank GmbH

      Respondent: Republik Österreich

      Interested parties: Bundeskartellanwalt, Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 102 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that a public authority acts as an undertaking if it stores in a database (business undertakings register) the information reported by undertakings on the basis of statutory reporting obligations and allows inspection and/or printouts to be made in return for payment, but prohibits any more extensive use?
               If the reply to Question 1 is in the negative:

               2.

               Does a public authority act as an undertaking in the case where, in reliance on its sui generis right to protection as the producer of a database, it prohibits uses which go beyond that of allowing inspection and the creation of printouts?
               If the reply to Questions 1 or 2 is in the affirmative:

               3.

               Is Article 102 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the principles laid down in the judgments in Joined Cases C-241/91 P and C-242/91 P RTE and ITP [1995] ECR I-743 and in Case C-418/01 IMS Health [2004] ECR I-5039 (‘essential facilities doctrine’) are also to be applied if there is no ‘upstream market’ because the protected data are collected and stored in a database (business undertakings register) in the course of a public-authority activity?


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 November 2003 in Case C-008/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret): Assurandør-Societetet, acting on behalf of Taksatorringen, v Skatteministeriet (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(f) and 13B(a) — Exemption for services performed by independent groups not likely to give rise to distortions of competition — Exemption for insurance transactions and related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents — Assessments of damage caused to motor vehicles carried out by an association on behalf of insurance companies which are members of that association)

text:
C 7/2                    EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                                10.1.2004
3.    Article 3 of Directive 77/187 precludes the transferee from               proceedings pending before that court between Assurandør-
      offering the employees of a transferred entity terms less                 Societetet, acting on behalf of Taksatorringen, and Skatteminis-
      favourable than those offered to them by the transferor in                teriet, on the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(f) and 13B(a) of
      respect of early retirement, and those employees from accepting           Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
      those terms, where those terms are merely brought into line               harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      with the terms offered to the transferee’s other employees at the         turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      time of the transfer, unless the more favourable terms previously         basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
      offered by the transferor arose from a collective agreement which         Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of
      is no longer legally binding on the employees of the entity               the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
      transferred, having regard to the conditions set out in                   Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
      Article 3(2).                                                             Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                                20 November 2003, in which it has ruled:
4.    Where, in breach of the public policy obligations imposed by
      Article 3 of Directive 77/187, the transferee offered employees
      of the entity transferred early retirement less favourable than
      that to which they were entitled under their employment
      relationship with the transferor and those employees accepted             1.    Article 13B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
      such early retirement, it is for the transferee to ensure that those            17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
      employees are accorded early retirement on the terms to which                   States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
      they were entitled under their employment relationship with the                 added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be construed as
      transferor.                                                                     meaning that motor vehicle damage assessments carried out, on
                                                                                behalf of its members, by an association whose members are
                                                                                insurance companies are neither insurance transactions nor
(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.                                                             services related to insurance transactions that are performed by
                                                                                insurance brokers or insurance agents within the meaning of
                                                                                that provision.
                                                                                2.    Article 13A(1)(f) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388 must be
                                                                                construed as meaning that the grant of exemption from value
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                               added tax under that provision to an association such as that
                                                                                in issue in the main proceedings and which satisfies all of the
                                                                                other conditions of that provision must be refused if there is a
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                            genuine risk that the exemption may by itself, immediately or
                                                                                in the future, give rise to distortions of competition.
                       of 20 November 2003
in Case C-008/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from                       3.    National legislation which allows a temporary exemption to be
the Østre Landsret): Assurandør-Societetet, acting on                                 granted where doubt exists as to whether that exemption, such
       behalf of Taksatorringen, v Skatteministeriet (1)                              as that in the case in the main proceedings, is liable at a later
                                                                                date to give rise to distortions of competition is compatible with
(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13A(1)(f) and 13B(a) —                                 Article 13A(1)(f) of Sixth Directive 77/388, provided that the
Exemption for services performed by independent groups not                            exemption is renewed only for as long as the person concerned
likely to give rise to distortions of competition — Exemption                         satisfies the conditions of that provision.
for insurance transactions and related services performed by
insurance brokers and insurance agents — Assessments of
damage caused to motor vehicles carried out by an association
                                                                                4.    The fact that large insurance companies have the assessments
on behalf of insurance companies which are members of that
                                                                                of damage to motor vehicles carried out by their own experts,
                              association)
                                                                                thereby avoiding liability for value added tax in respect of the
                                                                                provision of such services, is not such as to have any bearing on
                             (2004/C 7/02)                                            the answers to be given to the first three questions.
                    (Language of the case: Danish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published          (1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-8/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Østre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005 in Case T-170/04: FederDoc and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 — Common organisation of the market in wine — System governing traditional terms — Legal persons — Persons individually concerned — Inadmissibility)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/41

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 28 June 2005
   in Case T-170/04: FederDoc and Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 - Common organisation of the market in wine - System governing traditional terms - Legal persons - Persons individually concerned - Inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 217/91)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case T-170/04: Confederazione nazionale dei consorzi volontari per la tutela delle denominazioni di origine e delle indicazioni geografiche tipiche dei vini italiani (FederDoc), established in Rome (Italy), Consorzio per la tutela dei vini Valpolicella, established in San Floriano (Italy), Consorzio tutela denominazione Frascati Soc. consortile coop. rl, established in Frascati (Italy), Consorzio del vino Brunello di Montalcino, established in Montalcino (Italy), Cantina cooperativa di Montefiascone Soc. coop. rl, established in Montefiascone (Italy), Azienda agricola Ruggiero Giuseppa ‘Masseria Felicia’ Snc, established in Carano di Sessa A. (Italy), Michele Moio fu Luigi Srl, established in Mondragone (Italy), Consorzio vino Chianti Classico, established in Radda in Chianti (Italy), Consorzio tutela vini DOC Colli Piacentini, established in Piacenza (Italy), Cantine grotta del sole Srl, established in Quarto (Italy), Val Calore Soc. coop. rl, established in Castel San Lorenzo (Italy), Consorzio tutela Morellino di Scansano, established in Scansano (Italy), Consorzio tutela vini Gambellara DOC, established in Gambellara (Italy), Consorzio tutela dei vini Soave e Recioto di Soave, established in Soave (Italy), Azienda vitivinicola eredi Ing. Nicola Guglierame, established in Pornassio (Italy), Cooperativa agricola di Riomaggiore, Manarola, Corniglia, Vernazza e Monterosso, established in Riomaggiore (Italy), Consorzio per la tutela dei vini di Valtellina, established in Sondrio (Italy), Consorzio tutela vini DOC ‘Breganze’, established in Breganze (Italy), Consorzio volontario per la tutela del vino Marsala, established in Marsala (Italy), Consorzio vini Valdichiana, established in Arezzo (Italy), Consorzio del vino nobile di Montepulciano, established in Montepulciano (Italy), represented by L. Spagnuolo Vigorita, P. Tanoni and R. Gandin, lawyers, against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Nolin and V. Di Bucci, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for the annulment, or in the alternative, partial annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 316/2004 of 20 February 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 as regards the description, designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products (OJ 2004 L 55, p. 16) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Mengozzi and I. Wiszniewska-Białecka, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 28 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicants shall bear their own costs and those of the Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 179 of 10.7.2004.


title: Case C-166/12: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Radek Časta v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení (Request for a preliminary ruling — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 — Officials of the European Union — Pension rights in the national scheme — Transfer to the European Union pension scheme — Calculation method — Concept of ‘capital value of pension rights’ )

text:
               15.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský soud v Praze — Czech Republic) — Radek Časta v Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení
   (Case C-166/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 - Officials of the European Union - Pension rights in the national scheme - Transfer to the European Union pension scheme - Calculation method - Concept of ‘capital value of pension rights’)
   2014/C 45/15
   Language of the case: Czech

      Referring court

   Krajský soud v Praze

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Radek Časta

      Defendant: Česká správa sociálního zabezpečení

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Krajský soud v Praze — Interpretation of Article 4(3) of the EU Treaty and Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 30), as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (OJ 2004 L 124, p. 1) — Transfer of pension rights acquired before the official enters the service of the European Union — Concept of ‘capital value of pension rights’ — National legislation laying down a method of calculation of the pension rights offered for transfer resulting in a value much lower than the sum of the contributions paid to the national pension scheme.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               On a proper construction of Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of 29 February 1968 laying down the Staff Regulations of officials and the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities and instituting special measures temporarily applicable to officials of the Commission, as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004, a Member State may determine the amount of the capital value of pension rights by means of the actuarial equivalent, the flat-rate redemption value or by means of other methods, in so far as the amount to be transferred actually represents the pension rights acquired by virtue of the previous activities of the official concerned.

               2.

               Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Regulation No 259/68, as amended by Regulation No 723/2004, and Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as not precluding application of the method for calculating the capital value of pension rights acquired earlier, such as that defined in Czech law, even where that method results in the amount of capital to be transferred into the European Union pension scheme being set at a level of not even half the amount of the contributions paid by the official and his former employer into the national pension scheme.

               3.

               Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to Regulation No 259/68, as amended by Regulation No 723/2004, and Article 4(3) TEU must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of calculating the amount of the capital value of pension rights acquired under the national pension scheme and intended to be transferred into the European Union pension scheme, account is not to be taken of the period during which the official had already participated in that scheme.

      (1)  OJ C 200, 7.7.2012.


title: Case C-281/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 20 May 2016 — Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 20 May 2016 — Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken
   (Case C-281/16)
   (2016/C 279/26)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vereniging Hoekschewaards Landschap

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

      Question referred

   Is the Commission Implementing Decision of 3 December 2014 adopting an eighth update of the list of sites of Community importance for the Atlantic biogeographical region, (1) in so far as the ‘Haringvliet’ site (NL 1000015) was thereby placed on that list without the inclusion of the Leenheerenpolder, valid?

      (1)  OJ 2015 L 18, p. 385.


title: Case C-553/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Kyocera Mita Europe BV v European Commission (Appeal — Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff — Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 — Actions for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU — Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures — Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties — Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/4

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Kyocera Mita Europe BV v European Commission
   (Case C-553/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff - Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 - Actions for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Regulatory act not entailing implementing measures - Release of goods and communication of the amount of the duties - Use of simplified procedures or data-processing techniques))
   (2016/C 048/06)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Kyocera Mita Europe BV (represented by: P. De Baere, avocat, and P. Muñiz, advogado)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Kyocera Mita Europe BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 9.2.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 1998 in Case C-136/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the French Cour de Cassation): Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés (CNAVTS) v. Évelyne Thibault (Equal treatment for men and women - Directive 76/207/EEC - Maternity leave - Right to an assessment of performance)

text:
C 209/6               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
Cologne, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the                    1. Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty precludes a supplier
proceedings pending before that court between                             established in a Member State of the Community from
Metronome Musik GmbH and Music Point Hokamp                               imposing on a distributor established in another
GmbH Ð on the validity of Article 1(1) of Council                         Member State to which the supplier entrusts the
Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on rental                        distribution of his products in a territory outside the
right and lending right and on certain rights related to                  Community a prohibition of making any sales in any
copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ L 346 of              territory other than the contractual territory, including
27.11.1992, p. 61) Ð the Court, composed of: G. C.                        the territory of the Community, either by direct
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.                             marketing or by re-exportation from the contractual
Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of                    territory, if that prohibition has the effect of
Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                      preventing, restricting or distorting competition within
P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet                       the Community and is liable to affect the pattern of
(Rapporteur), G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G.                 trade between Member States. This might be the case
Tesauro, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                           where the Community market in the products in
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   question is characterised by an oligopolistic structure
judgment on 28 April 1998, in which it has ruled:                         or by an appreciable difference between the prices
                                                                          charged for the contractual product within the
                                                                          Community and those charged outside the Community
Examination of the question submitted has disclosed no                    and where, in view of the position occupied by the
factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 1(1)           supplier of the products at issue and the extent of the
of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992                       supplier's production and sales in the Member States,
on rental right and lending right and on certain rights                   the prohibition entails a risk that it might have an
related to copyright in the field of intellectual property.               appreciable effect on the pattern of trade between
                                                                          Member States such as to undermine attainment of the
(1) OJ C 233 of 10.8.1996.                                                objectives of the common market.
                                                                     2. Provisions intended to prevent a distributor from
                                                                          selling directly in the Community and re-exporting to
                                                                          the Community contractual products which the
                                                                          distributor has undertaken to sell in non-member
                                                                          countries do not escape the prohibition laid down in
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Article 85(1) of the Treaty on the ground that the
                       of 28 April 1998                                   Community supplier of the products concerned
                                                                          distributes those products within the Community
in Case C-306/96: (reference for a preliminary ruling from                through a selective distribution network covered by an
the Court d'Appel de Versailles): Javico International and                exemption decision under Article 85(3) of the Treaty.
   Javico AG v. Yves Saint Laurent Parfums SA (YSLP) (1)
(Competition Ð Luxury cosmetic products Ð Selective                  (1) OJ C 336 of 9.11.1996.
distribution system Ð Obligation to export to a non-
member country Ð Prohibition of re-importation into,
            and of marketing in, the Community)
                        (98/C 209/11)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               (Language of the case: French)                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 30 April 1998
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       in Case C-136/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
         published in the European Court Reports)                    the French Cour de Cassation): Caisse Nationale d'Assu-
                                                                     rance Vieillesse des Travailleurs SalarieÂs (CNAVTS) v.
                                                                                EÂvelyne Thibault (1)
In Case C-306/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the Cour d'Appel de Versailles                   (Equal treatment for men and women Ð Directive 76/
(France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 207/EEC Ð Maternity leave Ð Right to an assessment of
pending before that court between Javico International                                         performance)
and Javico AG and Yves Saint Laurent Parfums SA                                               (98/C 209/12)
(YSLP), on the interpretation of Article 85(1) of the EC
Treaty Ð the Court, composed of G. C. Rodríguez                                       (Language of the case: French)
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen
(Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, D. A. O. Edward,                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges,                      published in the European Court Reports)
G. Tesauro, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            In Case C-136/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
28 April 1998 in which it has ruled:                                 of the EC Treaty from the French Cour de Cassation
 ---pagebreak--- 4.7.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 209/7
(Court of Cassation) for a preliminary ruling in the pro-            D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,
ceedings pending before that court between Caisse Natio-             P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate
nale d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs SalarieÂs               General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator,
(CNAVTS) and EÂvelyne Thibault Ð on the interpretation               for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 April 1998,
of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on                in which it has ruled:
the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
men and women as regards access to employment,                       On a proper construction, Council Decision 89/688/EEC
vocational training and promotion, and working                       of 22 December 1989 concerning the dock dues in the
conditions (OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40) Ð the Court                 French overseas departments precludes exemptions of a
(Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President                general or systematic order, which would thus amount to
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray            the reintroduction of a charge having an effect equivalent
(Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo                   to that of a customs duty. That decision does, however,
Colomer, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,                      authorise exemptions which are necessary, proportionate
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a              and precisely determined and which respect the strict
judgment on 30 April 1998, in which it has ruled:                    conditions laid down in Article 2(3) thereof, interpreted in
                                                                     the light of the limits laid down in Article 226 of the EC
Articles 2(3) and 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of            Treaty.
9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of
equal treatment for men and women as regards access to               (1) OJ C 95 of 30.3.1996.
employment, vocational training and promotion, and
working conditions preclude national rules which deprive
a woman of the right to an assessment of her performance
and, consequently, to the possibility of qualifying for
promotion because she was absent from the undertaking
on account of maternity leave.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
(1) OJ C 189 of 22.7.1995.
                                                                                of 30 April 1998
                                                                     in Joined Cases C-377/96 to C-384/96: (references for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling from the Belgian Hof van Cassatie/
                                                                     Cour de Cassation): August De Vriendt v. Rijksdienst
                                                                     voor Pensioenen, Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v. ReneÂ van
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     Looveren and Others (1)
                       of 30 April 1998                              (Directive 79/7/EEC Ð Equal treatment Ð Old-age and
                                                                     retirement pensions Ð Method of calculation Ð
in Joined Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96 (references for a                                       Pensionable age)
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance, Paris):
Sodiprem SARL and Others (C-37/96) and Roger Albert                                          (98/C 209/14)
     SA (C-38/96) v. Direction GeÂneÂrale des Douanes (1)
(Dock dues (octroi de mer) Ð Fiscal rules applicable to                       (Language of the case: Dutch and French)
the French overseas departments Ð Decision 89/688/EEC
Ð Charges having an effect equivalent to a customs duty                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                     Ð Internal taxation)                                     published in the European Court Reports)
                        (98/C 209/13)
                                                                     In Joined Cases C-377/96 to C-384/96: references to the
               (Language of the case: French)                        Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Belgian
                                                                     Hof van Cassatie/Cour de Cassation for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       between August De Vriendt and Rijksdienst voor Pensioe-
         published in the European Court Reports)                    nen (C-377/96), Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen and ReneÂ van
                                                                     Looveren (C-378/96), Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen and
                                                                     Julien Grare (C-379/96), Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen and
In Joined Cases C-37/96 and C-38/96: references to the               Karel Boeykens (C-380/96), Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribu-             and Frans Serneels (C-381/96), Office National des Pen-
nal d'Instance (District Court), Paris, for a preliminary            sions (ONP) and Fredy Parotte (C-382/96), Office Natio-
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court                  nal des Pensions (ONP) and Camille Delbrouck (C-383/
between Sodiprem SARL and Others (C-37/96) and Roger                 96) and Office National des Pensions (ONP) and Henri
Albert SA (C-38/96) and Direction GeÂneÂrale des Douanes             Props (C-384/96) Ð on the interpretation of Article 7 of
Ð on the interpretation of Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC           Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the
Treaty Ð the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez                     progressive implementation of the principle of equal
Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M.                    treatment for men and women in matters of social security
Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C.              (OJ L 6 of 10.1.1979, p. 24) Ð the Court (Sixth
Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray,                 Chamber), composed of H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur),


title: Case T-687/14: Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (African SIMBA) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark African SIMBA — Prior national figurative mark Simba — Duty to state reasons — Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/42

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 January 2016 — Novomatic v OHIM — Simba Toys (African SIMBA)
   (Case T-687/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark African SIMBA - Prior national figurative mark Simba - Duty to state reasons - Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 098/54)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court: Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 July 2014 (Case R 2098/2013-4) concerning opposition proceedings between Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG and Novomatic AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Novomatic AG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


title: Case T-475/07 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of  18 June 2008 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission (Application for interim relief — Directive 91/414/EEC — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Admissibility — No urgency)

text:
               27.9.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/12

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 18 June 2008 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission
   (Case T-475/07 R)
   (Application for interim relief - Directive 91/414/EEC - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Admissibility - No urgency)
   (2008/C 247/22)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom); Dow AgroSciences LLC (Indianapolis, Indiana, United States); Dow AgroSciences (Mougins, France); Dow AgroSciences Export (Mougins); Dow AgroSciences BV (Hoek, Netherlands); Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary); Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl (Milan, Italy); Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland); Dow AgroSciences Iberica, SA (Madrid, Spain); Dow AgroSciences s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic); Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S (Kongens Lyngby, Denmark); Dow AgroSciences GmbH (Munich, Germany); Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos, Lda (Funchal, Madeira, Portugal); Finchimica SpA (Brescia, Italy); (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Doherty and L. Parpala, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision 2007/629/EC of 20 September 2007 concerning the non-inclusion of trifluralin in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant protection products containing that substance (OJ 2007 L 255, p. 42), until delivery of the judgment in the main proceedings.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case T-163/12 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 — Ternavsky v Council (Applications for interim measures — Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures against Belarus — Freezing of funds and economic resources — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Disregard of the formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/24

         Order of the President of the General Court of 23 April 2012 — Ternavsky v Council
   (Case T-163/12 R)
   (Applications for interim measures - Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Belarus - Freezing of funds and economic resources - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Disregard of the formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 174/40
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Anatoly Ternavsky (Moscow, Russia) (represented by: C. Rapin and E. Van den Haute, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the application of point 2 of Annex II to Council Implementing Decision 2012/171/CFSP of 23 March 2012 implementing Decision 2010/639/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 95) and of point 2 of Annex II to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 265/2012 of 23 March 2012 implementing Article 8a(1) of Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus (OJ 2012 L 87, p. 37)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-104/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Tax legislation — Deferral of taxation on capital gains arising on sale of residential property — Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC — Articles 28 and 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area)

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/11

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-104/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Tax legislation - Deferral of taxation on capital gains arising on sale of residential property - Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC - Articles 28 and 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area)
   (2007/C 56/18)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Ström van Lier and R. Lyal, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 18 EC, 39 EC, 43 EC and 56(1) EC and of Articles 28, 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — National legislation making deferral of taxation on capital gains arising on the sale of owner-occupied property when the taxable person acquires a replacement property conditional on both properties being on national territory
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force tax provisions, such as those in Chapter 47 of the law on income tax (1999:1229) (inkomstskattelagen (1999:1229)), which make entitlement to deferral of taxation on capital gains arising from the sale of a private residential property or of a right to reside in a private cooperative property conditional on the newly-acquired residence also being on Swedish territory, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC and under Articles 28 and 31 of the EEA Agreement;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 28 March 1995 in Case C-346/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal): Kleinwort Benson Ltd v. City of Glasgow District Council (Brussels Convention - National legislation modelled on it - Interpretation - Question submitted for a preliminary ruling - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
3 . 6 . 95            EN J               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 137/ 1
                                                                 I
                                                          (Information)
                                             COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                the Court does not have jurisdiction to give a preliminary
                      of 28 March 1995                              ruling on the question submitted by the Court of Appeal.
in Case C-346/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                    (') OJ No C 231 , 27 . 8 . 1993 .
the Court of Appeal ): Kleinwort Benson Ltd v. City of              ( 2 ) OJ No L 299 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 32 .
                  Glasgow District Council ( ] )                    (') OJ No L 304 , 30 . 10 . 1978 , p. 1 and — text of Convention as
(Brussels Convention — National legislation modelled on it                amended — p. 77 .
— Interpretation — Question submitted for a preliminary
          ruling — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
                         ( 95/C 137/01 )
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 4 April 1995
                (Language of the case: English)                     in Case      C-348/93 : Commission of the                European
                                                                                Communities v. Italian Republic ( ! )
                                                                    (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — State
                                                                    aid incompatible with the common market — Recovery —
In Case C-346/93 : reference to the Court under the Protocol                            Public holding company)
of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice                                   ( 95/C 137/02 )
of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and
the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
matters by the Court of Appeal for a preliminary ruling in                          (Language of the case: Italian)
the proceedings pending before that court between
Kleinwort Benson Ltd and City of Glasgow District Council           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
— on the interpretation of Article 5 ( 1 ) and ( 3 ) of the                   published in the European Court Reports)
abovementioned Convention of 27 September 1968 ( 2 ), as
amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the                  In Case C-348/93 : Commission of the European
Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the                Communities (Agents : Antonino Abate and Vittorio Di
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( 3 )          Bucci ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent: Luigi Ferrari Bravo ) —
— the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,                  application for a declaration that, by failing to abolish and
President, F. A. Schockweiler ( Rapporteur ), P.J. G. Kapteyn       recover within the prescribed period the aid improperly paid
and C. Gulmann, Presidents of Chambers , G. F. Mancini,             to the Alfa Romeo Group in the amount of Lit 615,1
C. N. Kakouris , J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray,          thousand million plus default interest calculated from
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch, Judges; G.         September 1991 to the date of payment of the amount in
Tesauro, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy                 question, and/or by failing to notify the Commission of the
Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 March           measures adopted to that end, the Italian Republic has failed
 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :                 to fulfil its obligations under Commission Decision


title: Case C-328/09: Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/34

         Order of the President of the Court of 18 January 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia
   (Case C-328/09) (1)

   2010/C 100/51

      Language of the case: Estonian

   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.


title: Case T-26/01: Action brought on 29 January 2001 by Fiocchi Munizioni SpA against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 108/26               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.4.2001
Secondly, despite not being in possession of documentary                  Following an exchange of correspondence with the Com-
evidence to prove that he had participated in the elections, the          mission, the applicant sent the defendant a letter calling upon
appointing authority did not grant even a single day in respect           it to act pursuant to Article 232 EC. However, even after being
of travelling time to the applicant, who had travelled from his           so called upon, the Commission has failed to define its
place of work to the place where elections were being held.               position. Therefore the applicant states that, some 20 months
The appointing authority’s refusal to grant him even the                  after the lodging of the complaint, the Commission has not
minimum amount of travelling time is a manifest breach of                 defined its position with regard to the preliminary inquiry
the principle of proportionality.                                         undertaken by it.
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
                                                                          principle of good administration, inasmuch as the Commission
                                                                          ought to have concluded the preliminary stage of the procedure
                                                                          within a reasonable time.
                                                                          Secondly, the defendant has failed to define its position with
                                                                          regard to the requests contained in the complaint.
Action brought on 29 January 2001 by Fiocchi Munizioni
 SpA against Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case T-26/01)
                          (2001/C 108/47)
                                                                          Action brought on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
                                                                          Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Case T-30/01)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 29 January 2001 by Fiocchi                                                (2001/C 108/48)
Munizioni SpA, represented by Ivo Van Bael, Enrico Adriano
Raffaelli, Fabrizio Di Gianni and Renato Antonini, avvocati.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     declare, on the grounds set forth in the present application        European Communities on 9 February 2001 by the Territorio
      and as a consequence thereof, that the Commission has               Histórico de Alava — Diputación Foral de Alava, established
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 232 EC by            in Alava (Spain), represented by Marta Morales Isasi and
      failing to act with respect to the complaint of the                 Ignacio Sáenz-Cortabarrı́a Fernández, lawyers.
      applicant, having refrained from adopting the appropriate
      decisions and not having addressed the requisite acts;              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission to pay the costs; and                          —     annul the Commission’s decision of 28 November 2000
                                                                                initiating the procedure provided for by Article 88(2) EC
                                                                                with regard to Article 14 of Norma Foral 18/1993;
—     adopt any other necessary and equitable measure.
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant in the present proceedings — an undertaking                 The measure to which the contested decision relates is
involved in the manufacture and marketing of arms and                     contained in Article 14 of the Norma Foral No 18/1993 of the
munitions — claims to have lodged with the Commission a                   Territorio Histórico de Alava of 5 July 1993 concerning urgent
complaint relating to State aid allegedly granted by the                  fiscal measures in support of investment and the promotion
Kingdom of Spain to E.N. Santa Barbara, having its registered             of economic activity. That measure concerns the grant of an
office in Spain. In that complaint, the applicant pointed out             exemption from corporation tax to undertakings founded in
that the alleged aid gave rise to serious distortion of compe-            1993 and 1994, and was adopted as part of a whole series of
tition in the market for arms, in which it is in direct                   fiscal measures in support of investment and the promotion
competition with E.N. Santa Barbara.                                      of economic activity.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 October 2002 in Case C-327/01: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement Directive 98/20/EC)

text:
7.12.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 305/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Third Chamber)                                                              (Third Chamber)
                         of 15 October 2002                                                           of 15 October 2002
                                                                              in Case C-328/01: Commission of the European Communi-
in Case C-327/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Ireland ( 1)
                             ties v Ireland ( 1)
                                                                              (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure                               to implement Directive 1999/28/EC)
                to implement Directive 98/20/EC)
                                                                                (2002/C 305/10)
                            (2002/C 305/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            in the European Court Reports)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-328/01, Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-327/01, Commission of the European Communities                      (Agent: M. Huttunen) v Ireland (Agents: D.J. O’Hagan and
(Agent: M. Huttunen) v Ireland (Agents: D.J. O’Hagan and                      C. O’Rourke): Application for a declaration that, by failing
C. O’Rourke): Application for a declaration that, by failing                  to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions                   necessary to comply with Commission Directive 1999/28/EC
necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/20/EC of                        of 21 April 1999 amending the Annex to Council Directive
30 March 1998 amending Directive 92/14/EEC on the limi-                       92/14/EEC on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes
tation of the operation of aeroplanes covered by Part II,                     covered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the
Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on                          Convention on International Civil Aviation, second edition
International Civil Aviation, second edition (1988) (OJ 1988                  (1988) (OJ 1999 L 118, p. 53) or, in any event, by failing to
L 107, p. 4) or, in any event, by failing to inform the                       inform the Commission of the adoption of those measures,
Commission of the adoption of those measures, Ireland has                     Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive,
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court              the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet
(Third Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),                  (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, F. Macken and
President of the Chamber, F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,                 J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General;
Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has                 R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 October 2002,
given a judgment on 15 October 2002, in which it:                             in which it:
                                                                              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed
                                                                                time-limit, the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
      time-limit, the laws, regulations or administrative provisions
                                                                                necessary to comply with Commission Directive 1999/28/EC
      necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/20/EC of
                                                                                of 21 April 1999 amending the Annex to Council Directive
      30 March 1998 amending Directive 92/14/EEC on the
                                                                                92/14/EEC on the limitation of the operation of aeroplanes
      limitation of the operation of aeroplanes covered by Part II,
                                                                                covered by Part II, Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the
      Chapter 2, Volume 1 of Annex 16 to the Convention on
                                                                                Convention on International Civil Aviation, second edition
      International Civil Aviation, second edition (1988), Ireland
                                                                                (1988), Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                                directive;
2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.                                        2.    Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
( 1) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.                                                  (1 ) OJ C 317 of 10.11.2001.


title: Case C-254/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Orgacom BVBA v Vlaamse Landmaatschappij (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charges having equivalent effect to customs duties — Internal taxes — Import levy on manure imported into the Flanders Region — Articles 30 TFEU and 110 TFEU — Levy payable by the importer — Different levies on imported manure and manure produced within the Flanders Region)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/12

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel — Belgium) — Orgacom BVBA v Vlaamse Landmaatschappij
   (Case C-254/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Charges having equivalent effect to customs duties - Internal taxes - Import levy on manure imported into the Flanders Region - Articles 30 TFEU and 110 TFEU - Levy payable by the importer - Different levies on imported manure and manure produced within the Flanders Region))
   2014/C 421/15
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Orgacom BVBA

      Respondent: Vlaamse Landmaatschappij

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 30 TFEU precludes a levy, such as that provided for under Article 21(5) of the Decree of the Flanders Region of 23 January 1991 on protection of the environment against fertiliser pollution, as amended by the Decree of 28 March 2003, which is applicable only to imports into the Flanders Region of surplus livestock manure and other fertilisers, which is levied on the importer whereas the tax on the surplus manure produced within the territory of the Flanders Region is levied on the producer and is calculated differently from the tax on imports. In that regard, it is immaterial that the Member State from which the surplus manure is imported into the Flanders Region provides for a tax reduction in the case of export of that surplus to other Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case T-311/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2008 — FMC Chemical and Arysta Lifesciences v EFSA (Action for annulment — Action for damages — Directive 91/414/EEC — Plant protection products — Opinion of the European Food Safety Authority — Non-actionable measure — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 17 June 2008 — FMC Chemical and Arysta Lifesciences v EFSA
   (Case T-311/06) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Action for damages - Directive 91/414/EEC - Plant protection products - Opinion of the European Food Safety Authority - Non-actionable measure - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility)
   (2008/C 209/94)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) and Arysta Lifesciences SAS (Noguères, France) (represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) (represented initially by: A. Cuvillier and D. Detken, subsequently by A. Cuvillier and S. Gabbi, Agents)
   Intervener in support of the applicant: European Crop Protection Association (ECPA), (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by D. Waelbroeck and N. Rampal, lawyers)
   Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by B. Doherty, Agent)
   Re:
   APPLICATION for (i) annulment of the opinion of EFSA of 28 July 2006 on the assessment of the active substance carbofuran under Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the marked (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1), and (ii) compensation for the damage sustained
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               FMC Chemical SPRL, Arysta Lifesciences SAS, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the European Crop Protection Association (ECPA) and the Commission shall each bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case F-109/10: Action brought on 26 October 2010 — Schätzel v Commission

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/43

         Action brought on 26 October 2010 — Schätzel v Commission
   (Case F-109/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/86
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Michael Wolfgang Schätzel (Ransbach-Baumbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Oehmen, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of the Commission refusing to pay the applicant a severance grant

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission of 8 April 2010 to refuse [the applicant a severance grant] and the decision rejecting the appeal of 30 July 2010, Appeal R/351/10 and order the Commission to pay him a severance grant in respect of his service from 1 March 2009 to 28 February 2010, equal to the actuarial value of his pension rights acquired during service in the Commission;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2002 in Joined Cases T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99: Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Concept of State aid — Tax measures — Selective nature — Justification owing to the nature or scheme of the tax system — Compatibility of the aid with the common market)

text:
C 156/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            29.6.2002
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              4.    In Cases T-129/99 and T-148/99, Article 1(c) of Decision
                                                                              1999/718 is annulled in so far as it excludes the plant valued
                                                                              at EUR 1 803 036,31 from the eligible costs covered by the
                        of 6 March 2002                                       Ekimen aid scheme.
in Joined Cases T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99: Territo-               5.    In Cases T-127/99 and T-148/99, Article 1(e) of Decision
rio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and                    1999/718 is annulled.
  Others v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                        6.    In Cases T-129/99 and T-148/99, Article 2(1)(a) of Decision
                                                                              1999/718 is annulled in so far as it refers to Article 1(a) and
(State aid — Concept of State aid — Tax measures —                            (b) of that decision and in so far as it instructs the Kingdom of
Selective nature — Justification owing to the nature or                       Spain to recover from Demesa aid relating to the annulled part
scheme of the tax system — Compatibility of the aid with                      of Article 1(c) of that decision.
                      the common market)
                                                                        7.    In Cases T-127/99 and T-148/99, Article 2(1)(b) of Decision
                                                                              1999/718 is annulled in so far as it refers to Article 1(e) of
                        (2002/C 156/29)                                       that decision.
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)                       8.    The actions are dismissed as to the remainder.
                                                                        9.    Each party is ordered to pay its own costs.
In Joines Cases T-127/99, Territorio Histórico de Álava —
Diputación Foral de Álava and Others, represented by A. Creus
                                                                        (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999 and C 299 of 16.10.1999.
Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, T-129/99, Comu-
nidad Autónoma del Paı́s Vasco, Gasteizko Industria Lurra, SA,
established in Vitoria (Spain), represented by F. Pombo Garcı́a,
E. Garayar Gutiérrez and J. Alonso Berberena, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg, and T-148/99 Daewoo
Electronics Manufacturing España, SA, established in Vitoria,
represented by A. Creus Carreras and B. Uriarte Valiente,
lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: F. Santaolalla, G. Rozet and G. Valero Jordana)                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
supported by Asociación Nacional de Fabricantes de Electrodo-
mésticos de Lı́nea Blanca (ANFEL), having its registered office
in Madrid (Spain), represented by M. Muñiz and M. Cortés                                          of 6 March 2002
Muleiro, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
and by Conseil européen de la construction d’appareils domes-
                                                                        in Case T-168/99 Territorio Histórico de Àlava — Diputa-
tiques (CECED), represented by A. González Martı́nez, lawyer,
                                                                        ción Foral de Àlava v Commission of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg — application                                            Communities (1)
for annulment of Commission Decision 1999/718/EC of
24 February 1999 concerning State aid granted by Spain to
Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España SA (Demesa) (OJ                (State aid — Decision to initiate the procedure under
1999 L 292, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Third                    Article 88(2) — Order to suspend payment of alleged aid)
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Azizi,
President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, V. Tiili, R.M. Moura
Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the                                   (2002/C 156/30)
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2002, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                                      (Language of the case: Spanish)
1.   In Case T-129/99, the action is inadmissible in so far as it
     seeks the annulment of Article 1(d) and (e) of Commission
     Decision 1999/718/EC of 24 February 1999 concerning                In Case T-168/99 Territorio Histórico de Àlava — Diputación
     State aid granted by Spain to Daewoo Electronics Manufactur-       Foral de Àlava, represented by A. Creus Carreras, lawyer, v
     ing España SA (Demesa) and of Article 2(1)(b) thereof.            Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Santaol-
                                                                        alla, G. Rozet and G. Valero Jordana) — application for
                                                                        annulment of the Commission Decision of 31 March 1999
2.   In Cases T-129/99 and T-148/99, Article 1(a) of Decision           initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) EC in respect of
     1999/718 is annulled.                                              the aid granted by the Spanish authorities to Ramondı́n SA
                                                                        and Ramondı́n Cápsulas SA, on the one hand, and requiring
3.   In Cases T-129/99 and T-148/99, Article 1(b) of Decision           the Spanish authorities to suspend payment of that aid, on the
     1999/718 is annulled.                                              other (OJ 1999 C 194, p. 18) — the Court of First Instance


title: Case T-212/09: Action brought on 2 June 2009 — Denmark v Commission

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/23

         Action brought on 2 June 2009 — Denmark v Commission
   (Case T-212/09)
   2009/C 193/38
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Bering Liisberg, Agent, assisted by P. Biering and J. Pinborg, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Primarily, set aside the Commission decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in so far as that decision involves the exclusion from Community financing of the expenditure declared by Denmark;

               —

               In the alternative, set aside in part the Commission decision of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in so far as that decision involves the exclusion from Community financing of the expenditure declared by Denmark, to the extent to which the exclusion from Community financing is based on:

               —

               an alleged breach of the rules on, and weakness in, the control of set-aside areas in 2002, 2003 and/or 2004; and/or

               —

               an alleged breach of the rules on, and weakness in, remote-sensing control in 2003 and/or 2004;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2009/253/EC of 19 March 2009 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), in so far as that decision involves the exclusion from Community financing of the expenditure declared by Denmark. (1)

   The applicant submits that the Commission’s decision is, in a number of respects, based on an erroneous understanding and application of the legal basis, particularly in regard to the issue of maintenance of the set-aside areas and the requirements relating to remote-sensing control.
   It is further submitted that the decision suffers from fundamental defects in its reasoning and is in a number of respects at variance with the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and with the principle of legal certainty.
   In conclusion, the applicant contends that the correction was carried out in a manner contrary to the Commission’s own guidelines, has an insufficient basis in the facts and is disproportionate in light of the fact that the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund was not faced with a genuine financial risk in this case.

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 75, p. 15; notified under document number C(2009) 1945.


title: Case F-7/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 February 2009 — Schönberger v Parliament (Staff case — Officials — Promotion — Consideration of comparative merits — Award of merit points — Principle of equal treatment)

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/39

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 11 February 2009 — Schönberger v Parliament
   (Case F-7/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Promotion - Consideration of comparative merits - Award of merit points - Principle of equal treatment)
   2009/C 102/58
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Peter Schönberger (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: S. Seyr and A. Zejdová, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Parliament’s decision of 15 January 2007 to award the applicant a lower number of priority points than he wished.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decisions by which the European Parliament refused to award a third merit point to Mr Schönberger under the 2003 appraisal procedure;

               2.

               Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 69.


title: Case T-455/08: Action brought on 6 October 2008 — Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/36

         Action brought on 6 October 2008 — Mitteldeutsche Flughafen and Flughafen Leipzig/Halle v Commission
   (Case T-455/08)
   (2008/C 327/65)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG (Leipzig, Germany), Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented by: M. Núñez-Müller, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1 of the Commission's decision of 23 July 2008 (C(2008) 3512 final) pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC in so far as the Commission finds that

                           (a)

                           the measure adopted by Germany in respect of capital contributions for the construction of a new southern runway and related airport infrastructure at Leipzig/Halle airport constitutes State aid for the purposes of Article 87(1) EC; and

                           (b)

                           this ‘State aid’ amounts to EUR 350 million;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the applicants' costs, pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants object to the findings in the first part of Article 1 of Commission Decision C(2008) 3512 final of 23 July 2008 Measure No C48/2006 (ex N227/2006) Germany DHL and Leipzig Halle Airport that the capital contributions granted by Germany to Leipzig/Halle airport represent State aid to the airport and that that aid amounts to EUR 350 million.
   The applicants rely on eight pleas in law in support of their claims:
   First, the applicants submit that the rules on State aid are not even applicable because the airport is not an undertaking within the meaning of those rules, so far as the expansion of regional airport infrastructure is concerned.
   Second, Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH is a State-owned single purpose vehicle with an organisational structure governed by private law which, accordingly, as is generally acknowledged, cannot be deemed to be a recipient of aid in so far as the State provides it with the resources required in order to perform its functions.
   Third, the contested decision is inherently contradictory, in that Flughafen Leipzig/Halle GmbH is simultaneously treated in the decision both as recipient and donor of aid.
   Fourth, the application of the guidelines published in 2005 (1) to facts which obtained before the guidelines were published is contrary to the prohibition on retroactivity, the requirement of legal certainty, the protection of legitimate expectations and the principle of equality. In the applicant's view, only the Commission's 1994 guidelines (2) were applicable.
   In addition, the applicants state that the new guidelines are contrary to primary Community law, being factually inapplicable and inherently contradictory where regional airport operators do not have the status of an undertaking. The 2005 guidelines also made the construction of airports subject to the rules on aid, whereas, in the previous guidelines of 1994, this activity was expressly excluded from the application of the State aid rules. In view of the diametrically opposed content of the old and the new guidelines, and the non-revocation of the 1994 provisions, it is unclear how the financing of airport infrastructure is intended to be legally assessed.
   Sixth, the applicants submit that the Commission has committed a breach of procedure since it failed to apply the provisions of Regulation No 659/1999 (3) on existing aid to the capital contributions which it deemed to be aid.
   Seventh, the 2005 guidelines also circumvent the division of powers between the Member States and the Commission, since the Commission is extending its powers beyond the framework laid down in the EC Treaty by adopting an expanded interpretation of the essential criterion of ‘undertaking’ in Article 87(1) EC and, as a result of this expanded interpretation, making procedures which are within the administrative competence of national authorities subject to review by the Community institutions.
   Finally, the contested decision is inherently contradictory and infringes the obligation to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC.

      (1)  Communication from the Commission — Community Guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports, OJ 2005 C 312, p. 1.

      (2)  Communication from the Commission — Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA Agreement to State aids in the aviation sector, OJ 1994 C 350, p. 7.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty.


title: Case C-257/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 26 May 2011 — SC Gran Via Moinești srl v Agenția Naționala de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Administrația Finanțelor Publice București

text:
               13.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 238/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 26 May 2011 — SC Gran Via Moinești srl v Agenția Naționala de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Administrația Finanțelor Publice București
   (Case C-257/11)
   2011/C 238/08
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel București

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SC Gran Via Moinești Srl

      Defendants: Agenția Naționala de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF), Administrația Finanțelor Publice București

      Questions referred

               1.

               In the light of Articles 167 and 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, can the purchase, by a commercial company liable for VAT, of a number of buildings scheduled for demolition, together with a plot of land, with a view to developing a residential complex on that land constitute a preparatory activity, that is to say, investment expenditure for the purposes of developing a residential complex, entitling that company to deduct the VAT on the purchase of the buildings?

               2.

               In the light of Article 185(2) of Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, is the demolition of the buildings scheduled for demolition, which were purchased together with the plot of land, with a view to developing a residential complex on the land, subject to adjustment of the VAT on the purchase of the buildings?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).