title: Case C-594/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — T.G. van Laarhoven v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Right to deduct input tax — Limitation — Use of goods forming part of the assets of a business for the private use of the taxable person — Fiscal treatment of private use of goods that are assets of the business)

text:
               31.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 February 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — T.G. van Laarhoven v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-594/10) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Right to deduct input tax - Limitation - Use of goods forming part of the assets of a business for the private use of the taxable person - Fiscal treatment of private use of goods that are assets of the business)
   2012/C 98/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: T.G. van Laarhoven

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Interpretation of Article 17(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Deduction of input tax — Exclusion of the right to deduct — National rules limiting deduction of VAT for vehicles used by a businessman for both private and professional purposes

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6(2)(a) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, read together with Article 11A(1)(c) of the same directive, must be interpreted as precluding national fiscal legislation which initially authorises a taxable person whose passenger vehicles are used for both business and private purposes to deduct input value added tax immediately and in full, but which subsequently provides, as regards private use of those vehicles, for annual taxation based — for determining the taxable amount of value added tax owed in a given financial year — on a flat-rate method of calculating expenses relating to such use which does not take account on a proportional basis of the actual extent of that private use.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Case T-222/12: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — National Trust for Scotland v OHIM — Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (ST KILDA)

text:
               16.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 336/30

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2013 — National Trust for Scotland v OHIM — Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (ST KILDA)
   (Case T-222/12) (1)

   2013/C 336/64
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 227, 28.7.2012.


title: Case T-833/14: Action brought on 23 December 2014 — Søndagsavisen v Commission

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/51

         Action brought on 23 December 2014 — Søndagsavisen v Commission
   (Case T-833/14)
   (2015/C 138/68)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Søndagsavisen A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented by: M. Honoré, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the Commission’s decision of 9 July 2014 not to raise objections to the tax exemption for certain advertisements (SA.35683);

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant, who is a competitor of the aid recipient, has submitted that the Commission ought to have found that there were doubts as to whether tax exemptions on non-nominative advertising material and subscription newspapers delivered to households constituted aid.
   The applicant submits that the Commission accordingly ought to have decided to institute the formal investigation procedure, see Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of Regulation No 659/1999 (1). In failing to do so, the Commission disregarded the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108, stk. 2, TFEU.
   The applicant puts forward the following arguments in support of its argument that there were reasonable doubts:

               —

               the time the Commission took to handle the case was extraordinarily long and in itself shows that there was reasonable doubt — not least since it involved a notified aid scheme under Article 108(3) TFEU;

               —

               the Commission’s decision is vitiated by a lack of statement of reasons for the tax exemptions on non-nominative advertising material and subscription newspapers delivered to households; and

               —

               the Commission conducted an incomplete and incorrect examination of the Danish legislation on advertising taxes in determining whether the tax exemptions on non-nominative advertising material and subscription newspapers delivered to households gave rise to State aid.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, s. 1).


title: Case C-220/08: Order of the President of the Court of 26 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 26 November 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-220/08) (1)

   (2009/C 69/77)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case C-128/03 and C-129/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato by order of that Court of 14 January 2003 in the appeal brought by AEM SpA (C-128/03) and by AEM Torino SpA (C-129/03) against l'Autorità per l'energia elettrica e per il gas; Third party: ENEL Produzione SpA

text:
24.5.2003              EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 124/9
The obligation to end breaches of the Community law on the                     electricity occasioned, as stated in the reasoning, by the
award of contracts even by terminating contracts that have                     altered legislative framework and to finance general
already been concluded can also not be placed in question by                   revenue charges of the electricity system.
Article 2(6) of Directive 89/665 (2), which deals with ex post
facto review of potential breaches of the Community law on
tendering. A Treaty infringement can be treated as terminated           (1 ) Directive 96/92/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
only once the Member State concerned recognises the illegal                  of 19 December 1996 concerning common rules for the internal
nature of its action and the breach has been completely                      market in electricity (OJ L 27 of 30.1.1997, p. 20).
brought to an end.
( 1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
( 2) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.
                                                                        Action brought on 24 March 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                          the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-130/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/16)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di
Stato by order of that Court of 14 January 2003 in the
appeal brought by AEM SpA (C-128/03) and by AEM                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Torino SpA (C-129/03) against l’Autorità per l’energia                  Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 March
  elettrica e per il gas; Third party: ENEL Produzione SpA              2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Niels Bertil Rasmussen and Luigi Cimaglia,
                                                                        acting as Agents.
                 (Case C-128/03 and C-129/03)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (2003/C 124/15)
                                                                        —      Declare that, by failing to designate Community trade
                                                                               mark courts and tribunals of first and second instance, or
                                                                               in any event by failing to forward to the Commission,
                                                                               within the prescribed period, a list of such courts and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         tribunals indicating their names and territorial jurisdic-
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato                        tion, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
(Council of State) of 14 January 2003, received at the Court                   under Article 91 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1)
Registry on 24 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the                     of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark;
appeal brought by AEM SpA (C-128/03) and by AEM Torino
SpA (C-129/03) against l’Autorità per l’energia elettrica e per         —      Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
il gas; Third party: ENEL Produzione SpA on the following
questions:
(a)   Can an administrative measure which, on the terms and             Pleas in law and main arguments
      for the purposes stated in the reasoning, imposes on
      certain undertakings using the electricity transmission
      network an increased charge for access and use in order           Under the second paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty
      to finance general revenue charges of the electricity             establishing the European Community, regulations are binding
      system be regarded as a State aid for the purposes of             in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
      Article 87 et seq. EC
                                                                        In the present case, Article 91 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
(b)   Must the principles established in Directive 96/92 (1)            imposes an obligation on Member States to designate, in
      concerning the liberalisation of the internal electricity         accordance with their own national legal systems, national
      market and in particular Article 7 and 8 thereof concern-         courts and tribunals of first and second instance with jurisdic-
      ing operation of the electricity transmission network be          tion in matters of infringement and validity of Community
      interpreted as precluding the possibility for the Member          trade marks, and to forward to the Commission a list
      State to adopt measures imposing for a transitional period        of designated Community trade mark courts and tribunals
      on certain undertakings for access to and use of the              indicating their names and territorial jurisdiction. The final
      transmission network an increased charge in order to              date for compliance with these obligations was 15 March
      offset the overvaluation of hydroelectric and geothermal          1997.


title: Case C-148/10: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — DHL International NV, formerly Express Line NV v Belgisch Instituut voor Postdiensten en Telecommunicatie (Postal services — External procedures for dealing with users’ complaints — Directive 97/67/EC — Article 19 — Scope — Additional to means of redress available under national law and under European Union law — Freedom of action of Member States — Restrictions — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment)

text:
               3.12.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 355/6

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 October 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium)) — DHL International NV, formerly Express Line NV v Belgisch Instituut voor Postdiensten en Telecommunicatie
   (Case C-148/10) (1)

   (Postal services - External procedures for dealing with users’ complaints - Directive 97/67/EC - Article 19 - Scope - Additional to means of redress available under national law and under European Union law - Freedom of action of Member States - Restrictions - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment)
   2011/C 355/08
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DHL International NV, formerly Express Line NV

      Defendant: Belgisch Instituut voor Postdiensten en Telecommunicatie

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Beroep te Brussel — Interpretation of Article 17 of Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service (OJ 1998 L 15, p. 14), as amended by Directives 2002/39/EC (OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21) and 2008/6/EC (OJ 2008 L 52, p. 3) — Procedures for dealing with complaints from users of postal services — External scheme for dealing with complaints

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, in its original version and in the versions as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 and by Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes on providers of postal services which are outside the scope of the universal service a mandatory external procedure for dealing with complaints from users of those services;

               2.

               Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which imposes on providers of postal services which are outside the scope of the universal service a mandatory external procedure for dealing with complaints from users of those services.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case T-506/16: Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — Bodson and Others v EIB (Civil service — EIB staff — Contractual nature of the employment relationship — Remuneration — Reform of the system of remuneration and salary progression — Legitimate expectations — Legal certainty — Manifest error of assessment — Proportionality — Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff — Article 11(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the EIB)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 July 2017 — Bodson and Others v EIB
   (Case T-506/16) (1)

   ((Civil service - EIB staff - Contractual nature of the employment relationship - Remuneration - Reform of the system of remuneration and salary progression - Legitimate expectations - Legal certainty - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Duty to have regard for the welfare of staff - Article 11(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the EIB))
   (2017/C 277/66)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Jean-Pierre Bodson (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) and the 483 other applicants whose names are listed in the annex to the judgment (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (EIB) (represented by: initially, C. Gómez de la Cruz, G. Nuvoli and T. Gilliams, and, subsequently, T. Gilliams and G. Faedo, acting as Agents, assisted by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action under Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decisions, contained in the salary slips from April 2013 onwards, applying to the applicants the decision of the EIB Board of Directors of 18 December 2012, the decision of the EIB Management Committee of 29 January 2013, and the article published online on 5 February 2013 informing staff of the adoption of those two decisions; and, secondly, an order that the EIB pay to the applicants a sum corresponding to the difference between the amount of remuneration paid in application of the abovementioned decisions and the amount of remuneration due under the previous system, together with compensation for the damage which the applicants claim to have suffered as a result of their loss of purchasing power.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Jean-Pierre Bodson and the other members of staff of the European Investment Bank (EIB) whose names are listed in the annex to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-45/13 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).


title: Joined Cases C-442/03 P and C-471/03 P: Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of  1 June 2006  — P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Appeals — Actions for annulment — Decision terminating a review procedure initiated under Article 88(2) EC — Concept of State aid — Force of res judicata — Aid which may be declared compatible with the common market — Social aid — Conditions)

text:
               29.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/1

         Judgement of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 June 2006 — P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA v Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Commission of the European Communities
   (Joined Cases C-442/03 P and C-471/03 P) (1)

   (State aid - Appeals - Actions for annulment - Decision terminating a review procedure initiated under Article 88(2) EC - Concept of State aid - Force of res judicata - Aid which may be declared compatible with the common market - Social aid - Conditions)
   (2006/C 178/01)
   Languages of the case: English and Spanish
   Parties

      Appellant (in Case C-442/03 P): P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA (represented by: J. Lever QC, J. Ellison, solicitor, and M. Pickford, barrister, assisted by E. Bourtzalas, abogado)

      Appellant (in Case C-471/03 P): Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández, M. Morales Isasi and J. Forguera Crespo, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Khan and J. Buendía Sierra, Agents)
   Re:
   Appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition) of 5 August 2003 in Joined Cases T-116/01 and T-118/01 P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) and Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission dismissing an application seeking the annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2001/247/EC of 29 November 2000 on the aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of the shipping company Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya SA, now P&O European Ferries (Vizcaya) SA, and ordering the repayment of the aid held to be incompatible with the common market
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals;

               2.

               Orders P&O Ferries (Vizcaya) SA and the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 10.1.2004 and OJ C 21, 24.1.2004.


title: Case C-400/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 September 2006 — Codirex Expeditie BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 26 September 2006 — Codirex Expeditie BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-400/06)
   (2006/C 310/07)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Codirex Expeditie BV

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must subheading 0202 30 50 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) be interpreted as meaning that frozen (boned) meat derived from the part of the forequarter of the bovine animal referred to in Additional Note 1.A.(h)(11) to Chapter 2 of the CN may qualify for classification under that subheading only if the cut of meat in question is a connected cut?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 means that meat in loose portions may also qualify for classification under subheading 0202 30 50, is it sufficient for classification under that subheading that it has been established that the imported consignment of meat consists of cuts of frozen meat all of which are derived from the part of the forequarter referred to in Additional Note 1.A.(h)(11) to Chapter 2 of the CN, or must that consignment of meat, as a whole, or the individual constituent parts thereof (cartons) also satisfy other criteria or have other additional characteristics?


title: Case C-469/02: Action brought on 23 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
C 44/16               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                       22.2.2003
Under the ‘amended scheme’ (see the Notice of the Ministry of           seeking employment and obstacles that prevent an employer
Transport of June 1999 on the registration and MOT-testing              from offering such use will have the result of discouraging
of vehicles), Danish workers resident in Denmark may use                Danish residents — in contrast to persons resident outside
within Denmark a foreign registered vehicle without having to           Denmark — from seeking employment in a foreign undertak-
register it in Denmark, subject to compliance with the                  ing offering such ancillary private use of a company car.
condition that the work for the undertaking or at the
established place of operation outside Denmark constitutes the
main activity of the person concerned. The full registration            The Danish Government has set out four principal grounds of
duty need not therefore be paid inasmuch as registration is not
                                                                        justification: the interest in maintaining supervision (road
required. On the other hand, the Law on registration duty does
                                                                        safety and the monitoring and control of road users), the
require payment of a charge which is defined as a part payment          interest in preventing the erosion of tax revenue in Denmark,
calculated on the basis of the full registration duty or —
                                                                        the fact that certain barriers resulting from differences in
following authorisation and subject to the further condition            taxation levels must be accepted, and the interest in achieving
that the car is used solely for commercial purposes — as a
                                                                        equivalent conditions of competition as between Danish and
periodic payment of a fixed amount.
                                                                        non-Danish undertakings. None of these considerations can
                                                                        justify the Danish rules, whether by reference to the dero-
                                                                        gations from Article 39 EC authorised by the Treaty or to the
                                                                        case-law which states that national measures liable to restrict
                                                                        the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the
                                                                        Treaty or to make the exercise of those freedoms less attractive
                                                                        may be accepted under certain conditions.
Both the ‘previous scheme’ and the ‘amended scheme’ create
barriers to the free movement of workers contrary to the
combined provisions of Articles 39 EC and 10 EC. It is                  Finally, the Commission disputes the contention that Council
contrary to Article 39 EC to introduce or retain national               Directive 83/182/EEC (2) can be construed as meaning that the
provisions which give rise to obstacles to the free movement            Danish rules may be treated as lawful, quite apart from the fact
of workers, irrespective of whether the national provisions             that provisions of secondary Community law cannot exempt
apply indiscriminately, if the provisions affect workers’ access        a Member State from its obligations under the combined
to the labour market. The Danish rules are precisely of such a          provisions of Articles 39 EC and 10 EC.
character. A worker resident outside Denmark will, as a matter
of course, be able to use a foreign company car within
Denmark without having to obtain authorisation or to pay                (1 ) Case C-297/99 Skills Motor Coaches and Others [2001] ECR I-
duty. There is thus clear discrimination of a person resident in             573.
Denmark vis-à-vis a person resident outside Denmark in                  (2 ) Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemp-
respect of precisely the same use in Denmark of a foreign                    tions within the Community for certain means of transport
                                                                             temporarily imported into one Member State from another (OJ
registered company car. In conclusion, a worker who does not
                                                                             L 105 of 23.4.1983, p. 59).
perform his ‘main activity’ within the foreign undertaking —
which might precisely point to an extremely limited use of the
company car — is prohibited from using that company car
within Denmark. It seems obvious that an employer will
thereby be dissuaded from employing a person resident in
Denmark in preference to a worker resident outside Denmark
as the above obstacles exist even for purely commercial use of
the vehicle. It is in this context of secondary importance
whether the Danish rules can be regarded as constituting a
barrier to a worker’s right to seek employment outside of               Action brought on 23 December 2002 by the Commission
Denmark or a barrier to an employer’s prospects of recruiting           of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
workers resident in Denmark. There will be a barrier irrespec-                                        Belgium
tive of whether it is the employer or the employee who must
pay the costs and obtain authorisation or effect registration.
                                                                                (Case C-469/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 44/30)
With specific reference to ancillary private use, it should be
noted at the outset that transport from one’s place of residence        An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
to one’s place of work cannot be treated as constituting ‘private       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
use’; this follows from the judgment in Case C-297/99 Skills            23 December 2002 by the Commission of the European
Motor Coaches Ltd ( 1). The possibility of ancillary private use        Communities, represented by H. Michard, acting as Agent,
of a company car is an obvious incentive when it comes to               with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 22.2.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 44/17
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’appel de
                                                                           Bruxelles by judgment of that Court of 20 December
                                                                           2002 in the case of Siomab against Institut Bruxellois
—     Declare that by making the granting and payment of a                        pour la Gestion de l’Environnement (‘IBGE’)
      benefit under the career-break benefit scheme subject to
      the condition that the person concerned is habitually
      resident in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
      to fulfil its duties under Article 39 of the EC Treaty,
      Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council                                       (Case C-472/02)
      of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
      workers within the Community ( 1), and specifically, so far
      as concerns career breaks in the context of parental leave,
      Article 73 of Council Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 June                                         (2003/C 44/31)
      1971 on the application of social security schemes to
      employed persons and their families moving within the
      Community (2);
—     Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Cour d’appel de
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) of 20 December 2002,
                                                                           received at the Court Registry on 27 December 2002, for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Siomab against Institut
                                                                           Bruxellois pour la Gestion de l’Environnement (‘IBGE’) on the
(The residence clause) The Belgian authorities announced the               following questions:
removal of the clause relating to residence acknowledging
thereby that the Commission’s arguments were well founded.
However, work on compliance has not been completed.
                                                                           Where a Member State has recourse to the mechanism by
(The clauses relating to payment in Belgium) The requirement               which the competent authority of dispatch gives notice of a
that the persons affected by the benefit should have a bank                consignment note under Articles 3(8) and 6(8) of Council
account in Belgium is, in certain cases, such as to call in                Regulation No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision
question the effects of the amendments to the legislation at               and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the
issue. Indeed, there are instances where, in order to open a               European Community (1), must Articles 3(8), 4(3), 6(8), 7(4)
bank account or to maintain it, certain banks require a                    and 26 of the regulation be interpreted as meaning:
certificate of residence.
                                                                           (a)  that the competent authority of dispatch within the
(Procedure for dealing with previous refusals) It is essential, for             meaning of the regulation, which is empowered to verify
the purpose of legal certainty, that the real rights of the                     whether a planned shipment classified in the notification
individual are protected from the harmful consequences of                       as a ‘shipment of waste for recovery’ actually fits that
conduct by the public authorities which is based on rules                       classification, may, when it considers that the classifi-
which are incompatible with Community law. Failure of a                         cation is incorrect,
Member State to fulfil its obligations should not, in any event,
result in a financial advantage for itself. However, although the
Belgian authorities state that anyone whose career-break                        (1) refuse to transmit the consignment note because of
benefit was refused on the basis of the former rules may make                         that incorrect classification and ask the notifier to
a fresh application on the basis of the new rules, the cases                          transmit a new consignment note to it,
concerned will be routinely re-examined; neither is there any
information as to the dissemination of information or on the
procedures which will be put in place for back-payment of the
benefits to persons who have been denied them on the ground                     (2) transmit the consignment note after reclassifying
that they were not resident in Belgium.                                               the planned shipment as a ‘shipment of waste for
                                                                                disposal’,
( 1) OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p 475.
( 2) OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p 159.                               (3) transmit the consignment note containing the incor-
                                                                                rect classification, immediately accompanying its
                                                                                transmission with an objection based on that incor-
                                                                                rect classification?


title: Case C-97/12 P: Appeal brought on 23 February 2012 by Louis Vuitton Malletier against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2011 in Case T-237/10: Louis Vuitton Malletier v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Friis Group International ApS

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/8

         Appeal brought on 23 February 2012 by Louis Vuitton Malletier against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 14 December 2011 in Case T-237/10: Louis Vuitton Malletier v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Friis Group International ApS
   (Case C-97/12 P)
   2012/C 126/16
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzeretti, M. Boletto, E. Gavuzzi, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Friis Group International ApS

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed the appeal filed by tha Appellant against the contested decision and thus annul the First Board of Appeal decision in so far as it declared Community trademark registration No. 3693116 (figurative) invalid for ‘optical apparatus and instruments, including spectacles, sunglasses and spectacle cases’ in class 9, ‘jewel boxes in precious metals, their alloys or coated therewith’ in class 14, and ‘travel bags, travelling sets (leather goods), trunks and travelling bags, garment bags for travel, vanity cases, rucksacks, shoulder bats, handbags, attaché cases, document cases and briefcases of leather, pouches, wallets, purses, key cases, card cases’ in class 18;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. during these proceedings;

               —

               order Friis Group International ApS to pay the costs incurred by Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. during these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is aimed at showing that the General Court infringed Article 7(l)(b) CTM Regulation (1) by holding that the absolute ground for refusal set forth in this provision is applicable to Community trademark registration No. 3693116 (figurative) (the so called ‘FERMOIR S’) with respect to all the goods it covers in classes 9, 14 and 18, save for ‘jewellery, including rings, key rings, buckles and earrings, cuff links, bracelets, trinkets, brooches, necklaces, ties pins, ornaments, medallions; horological and chronometric instruments and apparatus, including watches, watchcases, alarm clocks; nutcrackers in precious metals, their alloys or coated therewith, candlesticks in precious metals, their alloys or coated therewith’ in class 14 and ‘leather and imitations of leather’ and ‘umbrellas’ in class 18.
   Firstly, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred in applying the case-law on three-dimensional shape marks to the present case (at least with respect to the majority of the goods covered by the contested mark) and thus in requiring as a legal standard for distinctiveness that the ‘FERMOIR S’‘departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector’, which is a threshold higher than the general one (i.e., the ‘minimum degree of distinctiveness’).
   In fact, the case-law clearly shows that, to apply the ‘departing significantly’ threshold, originally tailored for three-dimensional shape marks only, the relevant sign should be unequivocally related to the concerned goods, meaning that such sign must consist of, and be perceived by consumers as, a faithful representation either of the whole product or of one of its main parts, immediately recognizable as such.
   Contrastingly, the General Court took the view that any sign representing the shape of a part of a product is subject to the principles set forth in connection with three-dimensional shape marks unless it is absolutely impossible to conceptually view such sign as a part of the products it designates. As a result, instead of asking whether the contested mark could be perceived by the public as an essential part of the goods it designates, the General Court limited itself to establishing whether this mark could theoretically be used as a closing mechanism for goods in classes 9, 14, and 18.
   Secondly, the Appellant submits that the General Court erred when it came to assessing the validity of the contested mark with respect to those goods that it had found capable of including a closing mechanism, by infringing the rules concerning the burden of proof and distorting the clear sense of evidence.
   In particular, the General Court failed to give sufficient deference to the presumption of validity afforded to CTM registrations by requiring that the Appellant ‘provide specific and substantiated information to show that the trade mark applied for has inherent inherent distinctive character’ and thus shifting from Friis the burden of proving the invalidity of the contested mark.
   For all the reasons above, the Appellant requests that the Court set aside the judgment under appeal, in so far as it partially upheld the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of February 24, 2010, in Case R 1590/2008-1 that had declared the contested mark invalid for the goods it covers in classes 9, 14 and 18.

      (1)  OJ L 11, p. 1


title: Case C-154/03: Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

text:
C 124/14                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.5.2003
T-377/00 (1), T-379/00 (2), T-380/00 ( 2), T-260/01 (3) and                     —      failing to consider that the contested acts produced
T-272/01 (4) between Philip Morris International, Inc.,                                legal effects through the mere fact that they deprived
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp.,                           the Appellant of certain legal protections and advan-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco                                   tages within the Community legal order;
International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission
of the European Communities, supported by European Parlia-                      —      considering that case C-345/00 P, FNAB, can be
ment, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,                             applied to the instant case;
Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of
Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands,
                                                                                —      failing to consider that the contested acts are open
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                to judicial review since they are manifestly illegal;
Communities on 31 March 2003 by Philip Morris Inter-                                   and finally
national, Inc., established in Rye Brook, New York (United
States), represented by E. Morgan de Rivery and F. Marchini
Camia, lawyers.                                                                 —      as a first alternative, if the Court of First Instance’s
                                                                                reasoning is correct (quod non) that only the
                                                                                decision of the US District Court of the Eastern
                                                                                district of New York produces legal effects, then the
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                                            Court of First Instance erred in law by considering,
                                                                                notwithstanding the circumstances of the case, that
                                                                                the contested acts cannot be reviewed under
—     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                             Article 230 EC;
      15 January 2003 in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/00,
      T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01; and                                      —      as a second alternative, if the Court of First Instance’s
                                                                                reasoning is correct (quod non) that it is not possible
                                                                                to separately review a decision to initiate a law suit,
—     give final judgment on the issue of admissibility, pursuant                      it should have joined the question of admissibility
      to Article 61 of the Protocol on the Statutes of the                             to the substance.
      Court of Justice, by declaring the Appellant’s actions for
      annulment admissible and refer the case back to the
                                                                          2)    The Court of First Instance contradicted itself on an
      Court of First Instance for examination of the substance
                                                                                essential point of law.
      of the case; or
                                                                          3)    The Court of First Instance violated Article 292 EC.
—     failing that, refer the case back to the Court of First
      Instance for judgment on the admissibility issue and                4)    The Court of First Instance violated the right to effective
      subsequently and/or simultaneously on the substance of                    judicial protection.
      the case; and
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
—     order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs before            (2 ) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 24.
      the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.               (3 ) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 39.
                                                                          (4 ) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 45.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant contends that, in the contested judgment, the
Court of First Instance made the following errors of law:                 Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities against Ireland
1)    The Court of First Instance violated the concept of a
      challengeable act under Article 230 EC by:                                                      (Case C-154/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 124/24)
      —     considering that bringing proceedings on the basis
            of the contested acts is comparable to bringing
            proceedings under Article 226 EC;
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
      —     considering that the admitted lack of competence to           Justice of the European Communities on 3 April 2003 by the
            adopt the contested acts and the subsequent creation          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
            and exercise of such competence do not alter the              Karen Banks, acting as agent, with an address for service in
            legal position of the parties to the case;                    Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.5.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 124/15
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                     —    call for applications for the position of Secretary to
                                                                                the General Administration. Ref.: 03/EJ/14 (2003/
1)    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                        C 34 A/08) OJ C 34 A of 13.2.2003;
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 1999/36/EC of 29 April 1999 on
      transportable pressure equipment ( 1) and Commission                      —    call for applications for the position of Librarian/
      Directive 2001/2/EC of 4 January 2001 adapting the                             Archivist. Ref.: 03/EJ/12 (2003/C 34 A/06) OJ C 34
      latter directive to technical progress ( 2), or in any event                   A of 13.2.2003;
      by failing to notify those provisions to it, Ireland has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directives;
                                                                                —    call for applications for the position of Accounting
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.
                                                                                officer. Ref.: 03/EJ/08 (2003/C 34 A/02) OJ C 34 A
                                                                                of 13.2.2003;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                —    call for applications for the position of IT-informa-
                                                                                tics expert (webmaster) of the European judicial
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
                                                                                network. Ref.: 03/EJ/09 (2003/C 34 A/03) OJ C 34
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by                        A of 13.2.2003,
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 1 December 2000 and 1 July 2001 respectively                         the paragraph referring to the documents to be submitted
without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to                      in English by applicants submitting their application in
comply with the directives referred to in the conclusions of                    another language; and the paragraphs relating to the
the Commission.                                                                 linguistic knowledge required of candidates, from each of
                                                                                the calls for applications set out below:
( 1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p. 20.
( 2) OJ L 005, 10.1.2001, p. 4.
                                                                                —    in the call for applications for the position of Data-
                                                                                protection officer, as condition No 17: ‘Excellent
                                                                                knowledge of English and French. Ability to work in
                                                                                other European Union languages would be an asset’.
Action brought on 8 April 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain                          —    in the call for applications for the position of Law
                           against Eurojust                                          officer, as condition No 19: ‘Excellent knowledge of
                                                                                English and French. Ability to work in other Euro-
                           (Case C-160/03)                                           pean Union languages would be an asset’.
                           (2003/C 124/25)
                                                                                —    in the call for applications for the position of Press
                                                                                officer, as condition No 12: ‘Ability to speak at least
                                                                                English and French. Knowledge of other official
An action against Eurojust was brought before the Court of                           European Union languages would be an asset’.
Justice of the European Communities on 8 April 2003 by the
Kingdom of Spain, represented by L. Fraguas Gadea, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                              —    in the call for applications for the position of
                                                                                Secretary to the General Administration, as con-
                                                                                dition No 9: ‘Thorough knowledge of English and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                French would be an asset, as well as a satisfactory
                                                                                knowledge of other Community languages’.
1.    annul, in the following calls for applications:
      —     call for applications for the position of Data-
            protection officer. Ref.: 03/EJ/07 (2003/C 34 A/01)                 —    in the call for applications for the position of IT-
            OJ C 34 A of 13.2.2003;                                                  informatics expert (webmaster) of the European
                                                                                judicial network, as condition No 6: ‘Good know-
      —     call for applications for the position of Legal officer.                 ledge of English is essential; in particular, the ability
            Ref.: 03/EJ/11 (2003/C 34 A/05) OJ C 34 A of                             to speak at least two additional official European
            13.2.2003;                                                               Community languages, including French, would be
                                                                                an asset’.
      —     call for applications for the position of Press officer.
            Ref.: 03/EJ/13 (2003/C 34 A/07) OJ C 34 A of
            13.2.2003;                                                     2.   order the defendant body to pay the costs.


title: Case C-478/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria)) — Budějovický Budvar National Corporation v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH (Bilateral agreements between Member States — Protection in a Member State of a geographical indication of provenance of another Member State — Designation Bud — Use of the mark American Bud — Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 — Community system of protection of geographical indications and of designations of origin — Accession of the Czech Republic — Transitional measures — Regulation (EC) No 918/2004 — Scope of the Community system — Exhaustive nature)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/12

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria)) — Budějovický Budvar National Corporation v Rudolf Ammersin GmbH
   (Case C-478/07) (1)

   (Bilateral agreements between Member States - Protection in a Member State of a geographical indication of provenance of another Member State - Designation ‘Bud’ - Use of the mark ‘American Bud’ - Articles 28 EC and 30 EC - Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 - Community system of protection of geographical indications and of designations of origin - Accession of the Czech Republic - Transitional measures - Regulation (EC) No 918/2004 - Scope of the Community system - Exhaustive nature)
   2009/C 267/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Budějovický Budvar National Corporation

      Defendant: Rudolf Ammersin GmbH

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien — Interpretation of Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, Commission Regulation (EC) No 918/2004 of 29 April 2004 introducing transitional arrangements for the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs in connection with the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2004 L 163, p. 88), and Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 2006 L 93, p. 12) — Designation not the name of a region or place in the State of origin, protected in that Member State as a qualified geographical indication and also protected as a trade mark — Conditions defined by the Court of Justice in its judgment of 18 November 2003 in Case C-216/01 Budějovický Budvar under which the absolute protection of such a designation as a geographical indication may be regarded as compatible with Article 28 EC — Effect of the non-registration of such a designation at Community level on the maintenance of its pre-existing national protection and its protection guaranteed by a bilateral agreement in another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               It follows from paragraph 101 of the judgment of 18 November 2003 in Case C-216/01 Budějovický Budvar that:

                           —

                           in order to determine whether a designation can be considered to constitute a simple and indirect indication of geographical provenance, protection of which under the bilateral instruments at issue is capable of being justified on the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 30 EC, the national court must ascertain whether, according to factual circumstances and perceptions prevailing in the Czech Republic, that designation, even if it is not in itself a geographical name, is at least capable of informing the consumer that the product bearing that indication comes from a particular place or region of that Member State;

                           —

                           the national court must, in addition, ascertain, once again in the light of factual circumstances and perceptions prevailing in the Czech Republic, whether, as stated in paragraph 99 of that judgment, the designation at issue in the main proceedings has not, either at the time of the entry into force of the bilateral instruments at issue in the main proceedings or subsequently, become generic in that Member State, the Court of Justice of the European Communities having already held, in paragraphs 99 and 100 of that judgment, that the aim of the system of protection introduced by those instruments falls within the sphere of the protection of industrial and commercial property within the meaning of Article 30 EC;

                           —

                           in the absence of any Community provision in that regard, it is for the national court to decide, in accordance with its own national law, whether a consumer survey should be commissioned for the purpose of clarifying the factual circumstances and perceptions prevailing in the Czech Republic in order to ascertain whether the designation ‘Bud’ at issue in the main proceedings can be classified as a simple and indirect indication of geographical provenance and has not become generic in that Member State. It is also in the light of that national law that the national court, if it finds it necessary to commission a consumer survey, must determine, for the purposes of making the necessary assessments, the percentage of consumers that would be sufficiently significant; and

                           —

                           Article 30 EC does not lay down specific requirements as to the quality and the duration of the use made of a designation in the Member State of origin for its protection to be justified in the light of that article. Whether such requirements apply in the context of the dispute in the main proceedings must be determined by the national court in the light of the applicable national law, in particular the system of protection laid down by the bilateral instruments at issue in the main proceedings.

               2.

               The Community system of protection laid down by Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs is exhaustive in nature, with the result that that regulation precludes the application of a system of protection laid down by agreements between two Member States, such as the bilateral instruments at issue in the main proceedings, which confers on a designation, which is recognised under the law of a Member State as constituting a designation of origin, protection in another Member State where that protection is actually claimed, despite the fact that no application for registration of that designation of origin has been made in accordance with that regulation.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


C 275/54              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                    15.11.2003
—    Breach of the vacancy notice in that the Commission, in                     Removal from the register of Case T-58/02 (1)
     disregard of the decision made by the selection board,
     erred in its assessment of the applicant’s professional                                       (2003/C 275/91)
     qualifications, which perfectly matched the requirements
     set out in the vacancy notice and qualified him for                                    (Language of the Case: English)
     admission also to a Category B post.
—    Breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of            By order of 15 July 2003 the President of the Second Chamber
     the principles of sound administration.                              of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                          ordered the removal from the register of Case T-58/02:
                                                                          Kabushiki Kaisha Kenwood v Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                          Internal Market.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.
       Removal from the register of Case T-33/01 (1)
                        (2003/C 275/90)
                  (Language of the Case: English)                              Removal from the register of Case T-143/03 R (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/92)
By order of 24 June 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)
ordered the removal of the name of Kirch Media GmbH & Co
KgaA from the register of Case T-33/01: Kirch Media GmbH
& Co KgaA and Kirchmedia WM AG v Commission of the                        By order of 17 July 2003 the President of the Court of First
European Communities.                                                     Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                          from the register of Case T-143/03: Elisabeth Saskia Smit v
(1) OJ C 134 of 5.5.2001.
                                                                          Europol.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.


title: Case C-604/14 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2014 by Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 in Case T-177/10 Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/8

         Appeal brought on 27 December 2014 by Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 October 2014 in Case T-177/10 Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission
   (Case C-604/14 P)
   (2015/C 089/09)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (represented by: O. W. Brouwer, advocaat, T. Salonico and M. Siragusa, avvocati)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside paragraphs 50, 81 to 90 and 92 of the judgment under appeal and consequently that judgment in its entirety;

               —

               give final judgment in the matter and annul the contested decision; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the present appeal and of the action before the General Court.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is flawed and must be therefore set aside on the following grounds:

               1.

               There was a serious distortion of evidence in relation to the erroneous conclusion in the contested decision, upheld by the General Court, that the measure introduced changes to the substance of the Alumix tariff, as established by the 1995 Decree, and, consequently, there was a breach of Article 107(1) TFEU and the principle of legal certainty. The General Court, in paragraphs 81 to 83 of the judgment under appeal, misread the provisions applicable to the present case, in particular, Article 15.2 of Resolution No 204/99 of the Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas (Italian Electricity and Gas Authority), which shows clearly and unequivocally that — even after the introduction of the compensation component — the Alumix tariff did not undergo any substantive change either in respect of the net electricity price paid by Alcoa or in respect of the financing of the mechanism which guaranteed that supply price for Alcoa.

               2.

               The General Court infringed Article 107(1) TFEU, was inconsistent with the judgments handed down in Cases T-332/06 and C-149/09 P and seriously distorted point (b) of Alcoa’s first plea, regarding the Commission’s finding that it was not necessary to conduct any economic analysis to demonstrate that the measure granted an economic advantage to Alcoa. The General Court erred in its judgment in so far as (i) it was inconsistent with previous judgments handed down on the same question (T-332/06 and C-194/09 P); (ii) when applying Article 107(1) TFEU, it confused two criteria, both necessary to prove the existence of aid, inferring that an advantage was conferred on Alcoa from the mere finding that the resources used were of State origin; (iii) it failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons in so far as it failed to observe that the Commission had erred in assuming that Alcoa had obtained an advantage from the measure and had not, therefore, to that end, carried out a proper economic analysis to calculate the extent of the advantage in this particular case.

               3.

               The General Court committed a procedural error in that it misrepresented and distorted Alcoa’s second plea and consequently failed to adjudicate and to provide an adequate statement of reasons. The General Court erred in giving a ruling on a point which was not raised by Alcoa at first instance, whereas that court completely failed to address the point of substance put forward by Alcoa, namely, that, even in the event that an economic advantage had been found to exist, which is not accepted, the method used by the Commission to calculate the size of the benefit was erroneous, which resulted in an overestimation of the amount of aid to be recovered.


title: Case T-201/13 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 5 June 2013 — Rubinum v Commission (Interim relief — Authorisation of feed additives — Regulation on the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Weighing up of interests)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/82

         Order of the President of the General Court of 5 June 2013 — Rubinum v Commission
   (Case T-201/13 R)
   (Interim relief - Authorisation of feed additives - Regulation on the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Weighing up of interests)
   2013/C 225/183
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rubinum SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: C. Bittner and P.-C. Scheel, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Bianchi, G. von Rintelen and B. Schima, agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 288/2013 of 25 March 2013 concerning the suspension of the authorisations of the preparation of Bacillus cereus var. toyoi (NCIMB 40112/CNCM I-1012) as provided for by Regulations (EC) No 256/2002, (EC) No 1453/2004, (EC) No 255/2005, (EC) No 1200/2005, (EC) No 166/2008 and (EC) No 378/2009 (OJ 2013 L 86, p. 15).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim relief is dismissed.

               2.

               The Order of 15 April 2013 in Case T-201/13 R Rubinum v Commission is cancelled.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-343/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 January 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/41/EC — Activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision — Partial failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit — No institutions for occupational retirement provision located in the national territory — Competence of Member States to organise their own national retirement pension system)

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 January 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-343/08) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/41/EC - Activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision - Partial failure to transpose within the prescribed time-limit - No institutions for occupational retirement provision located in the national territory - Competence of Member States to organise their own national retirement pension system)
   2010/C 63/13
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Šimerdová and N. Yerrell, Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision (OJ 2003 L 235, p. 10)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 8, 9, 13, 15 to 18 and 20(2) to (4) of Directive 2003/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 22(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Case T-88/11: Order of the General Court of 4 May 2011 — BIA Separations v Commission

text:
               25.6.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 186/32

         Order of the General Court of 4 May 2011 — BIA Separations v Commission
   (Case T-88/11) (1)

   2011/C 186/59
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case C-351/06: Action brought on 24 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               14.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/6

         Action brought on 24 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-351/06)
   (2006/C 249/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and I. Kaufmann-Bühler, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany
   Form of order sought
   The Court is asked to:

               —

               declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (1) or by not informing the Commission of such provisions, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 10 of that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired on 31 July 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16


title: Action brought on 16 January 1996 by Sveriges Betodlares Centralförening and Mr Henrikson against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-5/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 133/23
Action brought on 16 January 1996 by Sveriges Betodlares               The applicants stress that their application for annulment is
Centralforening and Mr Henrikson against the Commission                being lodged as a procedural safeguard . It does not pursue a
                 of the European Communities                           different aim from that in Case T- 1 97/95 , nor is it based on
                          ( Case T-5/96 )                              different reasoning .
                           ( 96/C 133/53 )
                (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European                       Action brought on 26 January 1996 by Benjamin Laurence
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      Lay against the Council of the European Union and the
Instance of the European Communities on 16 January 1996                        Commission of the European Communities
by Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Henrikson,                                        Case T-10/96 )
represented by Dr Otfried Lieberknecht, Dr Michael Schiitte                                     ( 96/C 133/54 )
and Dr Wolfgang Kirchhoff, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, Avenue
Guillaume 62 .                                                                         (Language of the case: English)
                                                                       An action against the Council of the European Union and
The applicants claim that the Court should :                           the Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of First Instance of the European
— annul the decision contained in the letter from the                  Communities on 26 January 1996 by Benjamin Laurence
     Commission dated 17 October 1995 VI/040143                        Lay, represented by Alan Maclean and Joanne Keddie,
     ( Reference D ( 95 ) VI/1242/95 ), in so far as it refuses to     Dawson & Co, 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London
     fix, for the 1994/95 marketing year, the specific                 WC2A 3RZ, England .
     agricultural conversion rate applicable to the minimum
     sugarbeet prices also with regard to Sweden, for the              The applicant claims that the Court should :
     period from 1 January 1995 ( that is, the date the
     Accession came into force ) through 30 June 1995 ( the
                                                                       — order damages against the Council and/or the
     end of the 1994/95 sugar marketing year ), and
                                                                           Commission as per a report of D. R. Gasson, included in
                                                                           the application, and
— order the Commission to bear the costs of the
     proceedings .                                                     — order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
                                                                           costs .
Pleas in law and main arguments:
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants, the Association of Swedish Sugar Beet                  The applicant complains of the damaging consequences of
Growers and Mr Henrikson, an individual Swedish sugar                  the fact that, unlike the position with respect to SLOM I and
beet grower, seek the fixing of the specific agricultural              II, he, as a SLOM III milk producer, has not been
conversion rate, which has been refused by Regulation ( EC )           compensated for the absence of quota prior to the
No 1734/95 . The refusal was confirmed and restated by the             introduction of SLOM quota .
contested decision .
                                                                       In order to give effect to the judgment of the Court of Justice
On 16 October 1995 , the applicants lodged their                       in Case C-81 /91 Twijnstra , the Council enacted on 19 July
applications for annulment in Case T-197/95 against the                1993 Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2055/93 , on the basis of
aforementioned Regulation, on the basis that the                       which the applicant was finally allocated SLOM III quota in
Regulation expressly refused to determine a specific                   December 1993 . However, the award was not retroactive
agricultural conversion rate for Swedish crowns and thus               and the quota he finally received in no way compensates him
includes, in that respect, a decision against which an action          for the difficulties caused between 1985 and 1993 on
for annulment may be brought. As it could not be entirely              account of his not being allocated any quota, which meant
excluded that the non-determination of a specific                      that he had to lease quota .
conversion rate for Sweden in Regulation ( EC ) No 1734/95
might be regarded as a ' failure to act' on the part of the            According to the applicant, failure to compensate SLOM III
Commission, to which the rules laid down in Article 175 of             producers for the non-allocation of quota allowing them
the EC Treaty would apply, the applicant Sveriges                      to engage in milk production after the end of the
Betodlares Centralforening submitted, on 4 October 19 95 ,             non-marketing period, is disproportionate to the end
an express request for an agricultural conversion rate for             pursued by a non-marketing scheme . After taking milk out
Sweden for the sugar marketing year 1994/95 . This request             of production for the limited period of time prescribed, the
has resulted in the contested decision .                               existence of that limited non-marketing scheme should not


title: Notice of an open competition

text:
C 246/8        EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                 4.9.2001
                                           COURT OF JUSTICE
                                        NOTICE OF AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                      (2001/C 246/05)
        The Court of Justice of the European Communities will be publishing in the Official Journal of the European
        Communities C 246 A of 4 September 2001 the following notice of open competition:
        Spanish edition
        CJ/LA/10 (interpreters of Spanish mother-tongue)
        To obtain a copy of this Official Journal please apply to the Personnel Division of the Court of Justice of
        the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
        Closing date for application: 9 October 2001.


title: Appeal lodged on 14 June 1995 by Baustahlgewebe GmbH against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-145/89, Baustahlgewebe GmbH v. Commission (Case C-185/95 P)

text:
12 . 8 . 95            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 208/ 13
in the case of Affish BV and Rijksdienst voor de Keuring van         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Vee en Vlees on the following question :
                                                                     — Excessive duration of proceedings : owing to the
Is Commission Decision 95/119/EC of 7 April 1995 valid in               duration proceedings of five years and six months the
so far as it extends to Surimi fishery products, also referred           Court of First Instance infringed the applicant's right to
to as kamaboko , as imported by the applicant, which come               a remedy within a reasonable time .
from regions of Japan other than those in which the
establishments investigated by a mission of experts from the         — Breach of the principle of oral proceedings; the Court of
Commission were located according to their report of                    First Instance did not deliver its judgment until 22
4 April 1995 , or at least from establishments other than               months after closure of the oral procedure, that is to say
those investigated , and in relation to products which,                 at a time when the oral procedure could no longer be and
following appropriate investigation upon their importation              was no longer in its mind .
into the Community, showed no sign of health risks ?
                                                                     — Infringement of recognized rules of evidence : in
                                                                        establishing the facts the Court fundamentally infringed
                                                                        recognized rules of evidence in relation to various sets of
                                                                        facts . Thus, from the beginning it employed an incorrect
                                                                        yardstick for evaluating the evidence in as much as it left
                                                                        out of account the applicant's submissions and
Appeal lodged on 14 June 1995 by Baustahlgewebe GmbH                    examined only whether the Commission had succeeded
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance ( First              'to the requisite legal standard ' in adducing evidence of
Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-145/89,
                                                                        specific factual assertions . This also constitutes an
             Baustahlgewebe GmbH v. Commission                          infringement of the judicial duty of elucidation and of
                       ( Case C-185/95 P)                               the right to a fair trial . By declining to investigate the
                          ( 95/C 208/25 )                               evidence offered by the applicant the Court of First
                                                                        Instance infringed its duty to conduct an unfettered
                                                                        appraisal of the evidence, the principle of in dubio pro
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 April 1995 by             reo and finally the applicant's right to a fair hearing.
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case
T-145/89         between Baustahlgewebe          GmbH and
                                                                     — Misapplication of provisions limited as to time
Commission was brought before the Court of Justice of the               contained in the Rules of Procedure : to accept witness
European Communities on 6 April 1995 by Baustahlgewebe                  evidence as offered in the reply would manifestly not
GmbH, established in Gelsenkirchen, represented by
                                                                        have led to a delay in the proceedings . The reply together
Joachm Sedemund and Dr Frank Montag, of Deringer                        with the offer of witness evidence was dated 30 April
Tessin Herrmann & Sedemund , Cologne and Brussels, with                  1990, whilst the oral hearing took place more than three
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                 years later, namely on June 1993 .
Aloyse May, 31 Grand'rue, L-1661 Luxembourg.
                                                                     — Infringement of the right to a fair hearing. The Court of
The appellant claims that the Court should :                            First Instance erred in dismissing the request made by the
                                                                        applicant in its application that the Commission be
1 . Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of            ordered to produce certain documents to it for
     the European Communities ( First Chamber ) of 6 April              inspection . In the administrative procedure before the
     1995 in Case T-145/89 (') in as much as it sets the                Commission the applicant was not legally represented
     amount of the fine imposed on the applicant at ECU 3               and had not inspected the documents in the file; this was
     million ( paragraph 2 of the operative part ), dismisses the       essentially attributable to the fact that the statement of
     remaining claims ( paragraph 3 of the operative part) and          objections held the ' German group ' and the
     orders the applicant to bear its own costs and one-third           Fachverband       Betonstahlmatten,      rather  than     the
     of the Commission 's costs ( paragraph 4 of the operative          applicant, responsible for alleged infringements of
     part );                                                            competition law. At no time did the applicant have
                                                                        available to it the totality of the documents against it and
2 . Annul Articles 1 , 2 and 3 of Commission Decision                   in its favour . On no account may the Court of First
     89/515/EEC ( 2 ) of 2 August 1989 relating to a                    Instance decline to order the production of those
     proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty                        documents by relying on the argument that the applicant
     ( IV/31 . 553 — Welded Steel Mesh ) in so far as they affect       gave no indication that other documents would have
     the applicant and have not already been annulled by the             been relevant to its defence. A similarly serious
     aforementioned judgment of the Court of First Instance             infringement of the applicant's rights of the defence is
     in Case T-145 /89 ;                                                constituted by the dismissal of the request that the
                                                                         Commission be ordered to produce to the applicant for
3 . In the alternative, reduce to a reasonable amount the               inspection the documentation communicated to the
     fine of ECU 3 million imposed in paragraph 2 of the                 Commission by the Federal Cartel Office relating to the
     operative part of the aforementioned judgment of the               structural crisis cartel and the documents concerning the
     Court of First Instance in Case T-145/ 89 ;                        trilateral negotiations between the Commission, the
                                                                         Federal Cartel Office and the representatives of the
4 . Order the Commission to pay the costs at first instance              German undertakings involved in the structural crisis
     and on appeal .                                                    cartel . Irrespective of whether the structural crisis cartel
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/ 14             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12 . 8 . 95
      as such formed part of the decision to impose a fine, that         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landskrona
      cartel played a role in many places in the Commission's            Tingsratt by judgment of 14 June 1995 in the case of the
      decision and also had a decisive influence on the                               Public Prosecutor v. Harry Franzen
      judgment of the Court of First Instance .                                                 ( Case C-l 89/95 )
— Infringements of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty: the                                          ( 95/C 208/27 )
      Court of First Instance committed serious errors in its
      treatment of the established facts . In particular it several      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      times took no account of relevant considerations . That is
                                                                         European Communities by a judgment of the Landskrona
      true of market delimitation, the alleged arrangements              Tingsratt ( Landskrona District Court) of 14 June 1995 ,
      between the applicant and Trefilunion, the alleged quota           which was received at the Court Registry on 16 June 1995 ,
      and price agreements with the Benelux producers                    for a preliminary ruling in the case of Public Prosecutor v.
      concerning the German market and the alleged quota                 Harry Franzen on the following questions :
      and price agreements concerning the Benelux market.
      The judgment completely ignores the applicant's
      submissions at the hearing as well as the applicant's              1 . Is a statutory monopoly such as the Systembolaget
      replies to the written questions asked by the Court of                  compatible with Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome ?
      First Instance . Likewise the Court of First Instance failed
      to observe the preconditions of Regulation No 67/67                2 . Is a statutory monopoly such as the Systembolaget
      ( group exemptions ).                                                   contrary to Article 37 of the Treaty of Rome and, if so,
                                                                              must the monopoly be abolished or is an adjustment
— Infringements of Article 15 of Regulation No 17/62 : the                    possible ?
      Court of First Instance is wrong at law to assume that
      there is no need in an individual case to weigh up                 3 . If a monopoly such as the Systembolaget is to be
      mitigating and aggravating circumstances in the                         regarded as being contrary to Article 37, is any period of
      determination of the fine . Similarly wrong at law is the               adjustment available or should it have been abolished or
      Court 's assessment of the existence of the lawful                      an adjustment made by 1 January 1995 ?
      structural crisis cartel . The Court further fails to
       recognize that the applicant was in any event entitled to
      plead an inevitable mistake concerning the prohibition .
       Finally the Court misdirected itself in law in applying the
       principle of proportionality.
(') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
( 2 ) O ) No L 260 , 6 . 9 . 1989 , p . 1 .                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof,
                                                                         Amsterdam, by judgment of that court of 7 June 1995 in the
                                                                         case of ARO Lease BV v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst
                                                                                Grote Ondernemingen, Amsterdam
                                                                                ( Case C-l 90/95 )
References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                                                ( 95/C 208/28 )
Circondariale di Roma — Sezioni distaccate di Castelnuovo
di Porto e di Tivoli by orders of that court of 1 8 February
 1995 ( C-l 86/95 ) and 27 February 1995 ( C-187/95 ) in                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
criminal proceedings pending before that court against                   European Communities by a judgment of the Gerechtshof
Luciano Iommi and Others , Angelo Deodati and Luchini                     ( Regional Court of Appeal ), Amsterdam, of 7 June 1995
                                   Aldo                                  which was received at the Court Registry on 19 June 1995 ,
                                                                          for a preliminary ruling in the case of ARO Lease BV v.
                 ( Cases C-l 86/95 and C-l 87/95 )                       Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen ( Head
                              ( 95/C 208/26 )                            of the Large Undertakings Unit of the Revenue Office ),
                                                                          Amsterdam, on the following question :
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by orders of the Pretura                            Must Article 9 ( 1 ) of the Sixth Council Directive
 Circondariale di Roma — Sezioni distaccate di Castelnuovo                77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the
 di Porto e di Tivoli ( District Magistrate 's Court, Rome —              laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
 Castelnuovo di Porto and Tivoli Sections ), of 18 February               common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
 1995 ( C-l 86/95 ) and 27 February 1995 , which were                     assessment, be interpreted as meaning that a taxable person
 received at the Court Registry on 15 June 1995 for a                     established in the Netherlands who, as such, makes
 preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings pending                   available to third parties approximately 6 800 passenger
 before that court against Iommi Luciano and Others,                      cars under operational-lease agreements , of which
 Angelo Deodati and Aldo Luchini on questions identical to                approximately 800 were purchased and made available in
 those in Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-141 /95 (')•                    Belgium, where ARO does not have an office, supplies those
                                                                          services from a fixed establishment in Belgium ?
 (') See Of No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .


title: Case F-85/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/42

         Action brought on 29 August 2011 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-85/11)
   2011/C 340/88
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, S. Orlandi, A.Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 5 from 1 March 2009 in the 2009 promotion exercise

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant to Grade AST 5 from 1 March 2009 in the 2009 promotion exercise;

               —

               Order the Commission do pay the costs.