title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of 21 January 1998 in the case of Modelo SGPS SA against Director-Geral dos Registos e Notariado (Case C-56/98)

text:
11.4.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 113/9
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        103/EC, expired on 23 October 1995 without Belgium
                                                                   having brought into force the necessary provisions.
Ð annul the element concerning anchovy in Annex I to
    Council Regulation (EC) No 45/98 of 19 December                (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 1.
    1997 fixing, for certain fish stocks and groups of fish
    stocks, the total allowable catches for 1998 and
    certain conditions under which they may be fished (1),
Ð order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of
                                                                   21 January 1998 in the case of Modelo SGPS SA against
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to                           Director-Geral dos Registos e Notariado
those in Case C-179/95 (2).                                                                 (Case C-56/98)
                                                                                (98/C 113/22)
(1) OJ L 12, 19.1.1998, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 208, 12.8.1995, p. 10.
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by judgment of the Supremo
                                                                   Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court)
                                                                   of 21 January 1998, which was received at the Court
                                                                   Registry on 24 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in
Action brought on 20 February 1998 by the Commission
                                                                   the case of Modelo SGPS against Director-Geral dos
of the European Communities against the the Kingdom of
                                                                   Registos e Notariado on the following questions.
                            Belgium
                        (Case C-47/98)
                         (98/C 113/21)                             1. Is it open to an individual to rely on Article 10 of
                                                                        Council Directive 69/335/EEC (1) in his relations with
                                                                        the State where the latter has not transposed that
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                    Directive into its national legal system?
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 20 February 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, acting as            2. Are the transactions referred to in Article 4(3) of
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 Directive 69/335/EEC to be regarded as covered by the
office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,                       prohibition contained in Article 10 thereof to the
Kirchberg.                                                              effect that the levying is prohibited not only of capital
                                                                        duty but also of any other charge, in whatever form?
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   3. Must Articles 10 and 12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335/EEC
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                be interpreted as precluding that notarial fees for
    within the prescribed period the laws, regulations                  drawing up a (legally binding) official document
    or administrative provisions necessary to comply                    attesting to resolutions to increase capital or to amend
    with Council Directive 93/103/EC of 23 November                     articles of association from being varied according to
    1993 concerning the minimum safety and health                       the amount of the capital or the increase therein,
    requirements for work on board fishing vessels (1), the             respectively, rather than according to the cost of the
    Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations             service provided?
    under that Directive,
Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                   4. If so, is it permissible, in the light of Articles 10 and
                                                                        12(1)(e) of Directive 69/335/EEC, for the amount of
                                                                        the aforementioned fees manifestly and unreasonably
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     to exceed the actual cost of the specific service
                                                                        provided?
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                (1) Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969, concerning
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                   indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ L 249, 3.10.1969,
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                   p. 25).
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period,
which is laid down in Article 13 of Council Directive 93/


title: Case C-23/13: Action brought on 17 January 2013 — European Commission v French Republic

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/11

         Action brought on 17 January 2013 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-23/13)
   2013/C 79/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to make provision for the collection and treatment of urban waste water in 8 agglomerations with a population equivalent of more than 15 000 in what are regarded as normal areas, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment; (1)

               —

               order French Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By its application, the Commission claims that France has failed to implement correctly, in 8 agglomerations, Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water treatment.
   Article 3(1) and Article 4(1) of Directive 91/271 required agglomerations with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more than 15 000 to be provided with collecting systems and to subject waste water to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment at the latest by 31 December 2000.
   As regards urban waste water treatment obligations, Article 4(1) of the directive requires the Member States to ensure that waste water entering collecting systems is subject to secondary treatment or an equivalent treatment before being discharged.
   Lastly, the control procedures laid down in Annex I D to the directive make it possible to ascertain whether discharges from urban waste water treatment plants comply with the requirements of the directive pertaining to the discharge of waste water.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.


title: Case C-274/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court) (Germany) by order of that court of 16 June 2004 in the case of ED & F Man Sugar Ltd against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court) (Germany) by order of that court of 16 June 2004 in the case of ED & F Man Sugar Ltd against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-274/04)
   (2004/C 228/47)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), of 16 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ED & F Man Sugar Ltd against Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas.
   The Finanzgericht Hamburg asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

               1.

               In an appeal against a penalty imposed on the basis of the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 (1)are national authorities and courts permitted to examine whether an exporter requested a refund in excess of that applicable if the repayment decision under the first subparagraph of Article 11(3) of Regulation No 3665/87 became final before the penalty decision was issued?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative: in an action to challenge a decision imposing a penalty pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 in the circumstances set out in this order may it be examined whether an exporter requested an export refund in excess of that applicable in order to give effect to an interpretation of Community law adopted in the meanwhile?

      (1)  OJ L 351, p. 1.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/49

         Action brought on 9 February 2004 by Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Marie José Reinard against Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-43/04)
   (2004/C 94/135)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 February 2004 by Mohammad Reza Fardoom and Marie José Reinard, residing at Luxembourg, represented by G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the evaluation exercise 2001/2002 in relation to the applicants;

               —

               Alternatively, annul the applicants' career development reports (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001-31.12.2002;

               —

               Decide as to costs, expenses and fees and order the Commission of the European Communities to pay them.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants, officials of the Commission, contest the evaluation exercise 2001-2002 and, alternatively, their career development reports for the period 1.7.2001-31.12.2002.
   The applicants rely on infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations. They assert that the creation of computer forms completed directly on screen and stored in the new computer system for personnel management is equivalent to the creation of parallel files.
   Furthermore, the applicants rely upon infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. The fixing of a mean target and the procedure of communicating vessels constrains appraisers and, therefore, restrains their freedom of judgment in the appraisal of officials' services.
   In support of their action, the applicants also plead:

               —

               infringement of the Commission's decision relating to the General Provisions for Implementation of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations;

               —

               infringement of the Appraisal Guide and of the special guide for the staff evaluation exercise (2001-2002);

               —

               infringement of the principle of non-discrimination;

               —

               infringement of the principle of preventing arbitrary procedures, of the duty to state reasons, and abuse of powers;

               —

               infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti (abide by your own rules);

               —

               breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/ or interests of officials.


title: Case C-386/11: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG v Kreis Düren (Public contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Definition of ‘public contract’ — Article 1(2)(a) — Contract concluded between two local authorities — Transfer by one entity of the responsibility for cleaning certain of its buildings to another entity in return for financial compensation)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG v Kreis Düren
   (Case C-386/11) (1)

   (Public contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Definition of ‘public contract’ - Article 1(2)(a) - Contract concluded between two local authorities - Transfer by one entity of the responsibility for cleaning certain of its buildings to another entity in return for financial compensation)
   2013/C 225/11
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Piepenbrock Dienstleistungen GmbH & Co. KG

      Respondent: Kreis Düren

      Intervening party: Stadt Düren

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Agreement under which, in return for the reimbursement of costs incurred, a regional authority transfers responsibility for the cleaning of the public buildings which it owns to the local authority responsible for the area in which the buildings are situated — Classification of that agreement as a public service contract or as an agreement on cooperation between local authorities that is not subject to the European Union rules on public procurement

      Operative part of the judgment

   A contract such as that at issue in the main proceedings — whereby, without establishing cooperation between the contracting public entities with a view to carrying out a public service task that both of them have to perform, one public entity assigns to another the task of cleaning certain office, administrative and school buildings, while reserving the power to supervise the proper execution of that task, in return for financial compensation intended to correspond to the costs incurred in the performance of the task, the second entity being, moreover, authorised to avail of the services of third parties which might be capable of competing on the market for the accomplishment of that task — constitutes a public service contract within the meaning of Article 1(2)(d) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 22.10.2011.


title: Case C-299/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 26 May 2016 — Z Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet

text:
               1.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 26 May 2016 — Z Denmark ApS v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-299/16)
   (2016/C 279/28)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Z Denmark ApS

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a company resident in a Member State that is covered by Article 3 of the Directive and, in circumstances such as those of the present case, receives interest from a subsidiary in another Member State, is the ‘beneficial owner’ of that interest for the purposes of the Directive?

                           1.1.

                           Is the concept ‘beneficial owner’ in Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted in accordance with the corresponding concept in Article 11 of the OECD 1977 Model Tax Convention?

                           1.2.

                           If question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative, should the concept then be interpreted solely in the light of the commentary on Article 11 of the 1977 Model Tax Convention (paragraph 8), or can subsequent commentaries be incorporated into the interpretation, including the additions made in 2003 regarding ‘conduit companies’ (paragraph 8.1, now paragraph 10.1), and the additions made in 2014 regarding ‘contractual or legal obligations’ (paragraph 10.2)?

                           1.3.

                           If the 2003 Commentaries can be incorporated into the interpretation, in that case of what significance is it in the assessment of whether a company can be deemed not to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of Directive 2003/49/EC, if the interest in question is entered on the principal (‘rolled up’), if the interest recipient has had a contractual or legal obligation to pass the interest to another person and if most of the persons deemed by the State where the person paying the interest is resident to be the ‘beneficial owners’ of the interest are resident in other Member States or other States with which Denmark has entered into a double taxation convention, so that under domestic law there would not have been a basis for retaining tax at source had those persons been lenders and thereby received the interest directly?

                           1.4.

                           What significance does it have for the assessment of the issue whether the interest recipient must be deemed to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of the Directive if the referring court, following an assessment of the facts of the case, concludes that the recipient — without having been contractually or legally bound to pass the interest received to another person — did not have the ‘full’ right to ‘use and enjoy’ the interest as referred to in the 2014 Commentaries on the 1977 Model Tax Convention?

               2.

               Does a Member State’s reliance on Article 5(1) of the Directive on the application of national provisions for the prevention of fraud or abuse, or of Article 5(2) of the Directive, presuppose that the Member State in question has adopted a specific domestic provision implementing Article 5 of the Directive, or that national law contains general provisions or principles on fraud, abuse and tax evasion that can be interpreted in accordance with Article 5?

                           2.1.

                           If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, can Paragraph 2(2)(d) of the Law on corporation tax, which provides that the limited tax liability on interest income does not include ‘interest which is tax-exempt … under Directive 2003/49/EC on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States’, then be deemed to be a specific domestic provision as referred to in Article 5 of the Directive?

               3.

               Is a provision in a double taxation convention entered into between two Member States and drafted in accordance with OECD’s Model Tax Convention, under which taxation of interest is contingent on whether the interest recipient is deemed to be the beneficial owner of the interest, a conventional anti-abuse provision covered by Article 5 of the Directive?

               4.

               Is a Member State that does not wish to recognise that a company in another Member State is the beneficial owner of interest and claims that the company in the other Member State is a so-called artificial conduit company, bound under Directive 2003/49/EC or Article 10 EC to state whom the Member State in that case deems to be the beneficial owner?

               5.

               In a case where an interest payer is resident in one Member State and the interest recipient is resident in another Member State and where the interest recipient is deemed by the first Member State not to be the ‘beneficial owner’ of the interest in question under Directive 2003/49/EC and is therefore deemed to have limited tax liability on that interest in that Member State, does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, preclude legislation under which the first Member State, in the taxation of the non-resident interest recipient, does not take account of expenses in the form of interest expenses that the interest recipient has had in circumstances such as those of the present case, whilst interest expenses are generally deductible under that Member State’s legislation and can therefore be deducted from taxable income by a resident interest recipient?

               6.

               If a company resident in a Member State (parent company) is in fact deemed not to be exempt from tax at source under Directive 2003/49/EC concerning interest received from a company resident in another Member State (subsidiary), and the parent company of the latter Member State is deemed to have limited tax liability on that interest in that Member State, does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, preclude legislation under which the latter Member State requires the company liable for retaining the tax at source (subsidiary) to pay overdue interest in the event of overdue payment of the tax at source claim at a higher rate of interest than the overdue interest rate that the Member State charges on corporation tax claims (including interest income) lodged against a company resident in the same Member State?

               7.

               If a company resident in a Member State (parent company) is in fact deemed not to be exempt from tax at source under Directive 2003/49/EC concerning interest received from a company resident in another Member State (subsidiary), and the parent company of the latter Member State is deemed to be a taxable person with limited tax liability on that interest in that Member State, does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 (in the alternative Article 56 EC), viewed separately or as a whole, preclude legislation under which:

                           7.1.

                           the latter Member State requires the person paying the interest to retain tax at source on the interest and makes that person liable to the authorities for the non-retained tax at source, where there is no such duty to retain tax at source when the interest recipient is resident in the latter Member State?

                           7.2.

                           a parent company in the latter Member State would not have been required to make advance payments of corporation tax in the first two fiscal years, but would only have begun to pay corporation tax at a much later time than the due date for tax at source?

         The EU Court of Justice is requested to include the answer to question 6 in its answer to this question.

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States (OJ 2003 L 157, p. 49).


title: Case T-249/14: Action brought on 16 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/23

         Action brought on 16 April 2014 — Masafi v OHIM — Hd1 (masafi)
   (Case T-249/14)
   2014/C 235/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Masafi Co. LLC (Dubai, United Arab Emirates) (represented by: G. Hinarejos Mulliez, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hd1 Ltd (Huddersfield, United Kingdom)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 February 2014 given in Case R 1131/2013-4;

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings, should it intervene, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white containing the verbal element ‘masafi’ for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2 5 51  560for the word ‘masafi’

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) CTMR


title: Case T-303/95: Action brought on 3 August 2005 — ACEA Electrabel Produzione SpA/Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.10.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 257/14

         Action brought on 3 August 2005 — ACEA Electrabel Produzione SpA/Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-303/95)
   (2005/C 257/28)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties:

      Applicant: ACEA Electrabel Produzione SpA (Rome, Italy) [represented by: Luca G. Radicati di Brozolo, Massimo Merola, Chiara Bazoli, Fabrizion D'Alessandri, lawyers]

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission's decision of 16 March 2005 on aid for the reduction of greenhouse gases through the use of sources of alternative energy (State aid No C 35/03), in that it classifies as State aid measures to fund the construction of a distance heating system in the district of Torrino-Mezzocammino, and in that it suspends the grant of aid until Italy has supplied evidence of repayment by ACEA of the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on tax relief for ex-municipal undertakings;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in this case is a company controlled by Electrabel SA and ACEA. More precisely, it was one of three operating companies controlled by the hodling company ACEA Electrabel Holding SpA, a joint venture company created by Electrabel and ACEA in order to operate in the field of gas and electric energy.
   The action concerns the decision of 16 March 2005 by which the Commission concluded the proceedings brought under Article 88(2) EC for the purpose of examining the compatibility with Community law of the funding granted by the Regione Lazion for the extension of a distance heating system in the district of Torrino-Mezzocammino, near Rome (State aid No C-35/03 — ex NN 90/2002).
   The applicant requests the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to declare the decision null in so far as it classifies as State aid measures to fund the construction of a distance heating network in the district of Torrino-Mezzocammino, and in that it suspends the grant of aid until Italy has supplied evidence of repayment by ACEA of the aid declared unlawful and incompatible with Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on tax relief for ex-municipal undertakings (‘the Tax Relief Decision’).
   The action is based in particular on the following main grounds:

               (a)

               the measure in question does not constitute State aid, inasmuch as it is not capable of affecting competition, and does not on any view cause any damage to intra-Community trade. In point of fact, it exhausts its effects at local level, being intended to subsidise a project (the construction of a heating system in a quarter near Rome) that is to benefit a limited number of users in a restricted area of Italian territory, in fact, merely an overspill area for a large town;

               (b)

               the recipient (i.e. the applicant) of that measure is not the same as the beneficiary of the aid that is the subject-matter of the Tax Relief Decision (i.e. ACEA), nor does it constitute a single economic entity with the latter, so that the order for suspension of the grant of aid appears quite unjustified;

               (c)

               even leaving aside the error in the identification of the recipient and even if ACEA were, quod non, to be considered to be the actual recipient of the aid in question, application of the judgment in Deggendorf
                   (1) would seem to be without bearing on the circumstances of this case. Specifically, the Commission has not demonstrated that there are any grounds (in particular, the cumulative effect of the previous measures together with the new measures) which, according to the principles to be drawn from that judgment, must be present if grant of the measure/aid? is to be suspended.

      (1)  Judgment in Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 TWD v Commission [1995] ECR II-2265, upheld by judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-355/95 [1997] ECR I-2549.


title: Case C-373/04 P: Appeal brought on 27 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 10 June 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01 between Ms M. Alvarez Moreno and Commission of the European Communities

text:
               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/10

         Appeal brought on 27 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 10 June 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01 between Ms M. Alvarez Moreno and Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-373/04 P)
   (2004/C 251/19)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 August 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T/153/01 and T-323/01 between M. Alvarez Moreno and the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 August 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and D. Martin, Agents.
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance as regards Case T-323/01;

               2.

               declare the application inadmissible in Case T-323/01;

               3.

               in the alternative, give judgment itself in the present case, in accordance with Article 61 of the EC Statute, and dismiss the application in Case T-323/01 as unfounded;

               4.

               order Ms Alvarez Moreno to pay the costs of the present case and to bear her own costs in Case T-323/01.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The action brought by Ms Alvarez Moreno in Case T-323/01 should be declared inadmissible. The Court of First Instance erred in law in classifying the letter of 23 February 2001 as a ‘decision’ and, consequently, in conferring on it the status of an act adversely affecting the applicant. First, the applicant's letter to the Commission does not contain a request for a decision within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, but only a request for information concerning the legal basis on which the Commission relied when deciding that it would no longer recruit interpreters aged more than 65 years. Accordingly, the answer to that letter could not constitute an act adversely affecting the applicant within the meaning of that provision. Next, the letter of 23 February does not in any event contain any decision of the Commission producing binding legal effects, of such a kind as to affect the applicant's interests, by significantly altering her legal position.
   As regards the substance, the Court of First Instance erred in law, first, by holding that Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants is not applicable to auxiliary staff recruited pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment and, second, by holding that the rules applicable to auxiliary session interpreters (hereinafter ‘the RIAS’), adopted by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 13 July 1999, cover the question of the end of the appointment. The third paragraph of Article 78 of the Conditions of Employment, under which the contracts of employment of conference interpreters as members of the auxiliary staff may be subject to a regime which derogates from the standard arrangements, deals exclusively with conditions of recruitment and remuneration and does not concern the end of the appointment, which is therefore governed by Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment, which lays down the age limit. It is incorrect to take the view, as the Court of First Instance did in the judgment under appeal, that in the case of contracts limited to specific days, the end of the appointment constitutes a condition of recruitment and thus to introduce a distinction not provided for in the Conditions of Employment between contracts of a few days' duration and those for longer periods. Furthermore, in accepting that it is the RIAS that must govern the question of the end of the appointment of conference interpreters who are members of the auxiliary staff, those rules contain no expression provision establishing an age limit. Where the RIAS are silent, it is the Conditions of Employment, and therefore Article 74 of those Conditions, that apply.


title: Case C-294/16: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — JZ v Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź — Śródmieście (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — Article 26(1) — European arrest warrant — Effects of the surrender — Deduction of the period of detention served in the executing Member State — Concept of ‘detention’ — Measures involving a restriction of liberty other than imprisonment — Curfew in conjunction with the wearing of an electronic tag — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 6 and 49)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 July 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi — Poland) — JZ v Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź — Śródmieście
   (Case C-294/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 26(1) - European arrest warrant - Effects of the surrender - Deduction of the period of detention served in the executing Member State - Concept of ‘detention’ - Measures involving a restriction of liberty other than imprisonment - Curfew in conjunction with the wearing of an electronic tag - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 6 and 49))
   (2016/C 402/15)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy dla Łodzi — Śródmieścia w Łodzi

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: JZ

      Defendant: Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź — Śródmieście

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 26(1) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that measures such as a nine-hour night-time curfew, in conjunction with the monitoring of the person concerned by means of an electronic tag, an obligation to report to a police station at fixed times on a daily basis or several times a week, and a ban on applying for foreign travel documents, are not, in principle, having regard to the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of all those measures, so restrictive as to give rise to a deprivation of liberty comparable to that arising from imprisonment and thus to be classified as ‘detention’ within the meaning of that provision, which it is nevertheless for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 16.8.2016.


title: Case T-319/00: Action brought on 12 October 2000 by Chantal Borremans and 17 others against Commission of the European Communities

text:
23.12.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 372/13
Action brought on 12 October 2000 by Chantal Borrem-                      The applicants complain that the Commission discriminated
ans and 17 others against Commission of the European                      against them by comparison with other agents of the EAC
                          Communities                                     who were established in 1982 and 1987. Moreover, they claim
                                                                          that the Commission had raised their legitimate expectations
                                                                          that they would form permanent part of the Communities’
                         (Case T-319/00)
                                                                          staff. By refusing to take account of the applicants’ legitimate
                                                                          aspirations, the Commission breached the principle of the
                         (2000/C 372/26)                                  protection of legitimate expectations.
                    (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 October 2000 by Chantal                        Action brought on 18 October 2000 by Elke Sada against
Borremans and 17 others, residing in Belgium, represented by                     the Commission of the European Communities
Albert Evrard and Anne Colson, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                                (Case T-325/00)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                                (2000/C 372/27)
—      annul the decision to offer the applicants contracts as
       members of the temporary staff in permanent posts with
       effect from 1 January 2000 (Article 2(b) of the Conditions                           (Language of the case: German)
       of Employment of other servants of the European Com-
       munities);
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—      call on the Commission to take an appropriate decision             European Communities on 18 October 2000 by Elke Sada,
       which would give fair compensation to the officials                residing at Besozzo/VA, Italy, represented by Dr Hans-Josef
       affected by the disadvantage arising from the annulled             Rüber, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, Germany.
       decision;
—      order the Commission to pay 1 euro subject to increase             The applicant claims that the Court should:
       or reduction during the course of proceedings by way of
       compensation for the material damage suffered by the               —     declare that the defendant is required to pay to the
       applicants with the exception of Mr Arnalsteen, who                      applicant a monthly unemployment allowance under
       assesses his damage at 1 000 000;                                        Article 28a of the Conditions of Employment of other
                                                                                servants of the European Communities,
—      order the Commission to pay 1 euro subject to increase
                                                                          —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
       or reduction during the course of proceedings by way of
                                                                                pay the costs.
       compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
       all the applicants, subject to an order for it to pay
       1 000 000 BEF to Ms Borremans and Mr Arnalsteen;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
—      order the Commission to pay all the costs.
                                                                          The applicant was a member of the temporary staff at the Joint
                                                                          Research Centre, Ispra. She rejected an offer to renew her five-
                                                                          year term of employment for a further five years.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          By the present action, she is objecting to the Commission
The applicants are former agents of the European Association              decision not to grant her any unemployment allowance or
for Cooperation (EAC). The object of that association governed            other social security benefits under Article 28a of the Con-
by Belgian law was the carrying out of various activities in the          ditions of Employment of other servants.
area of development policy on behalf of the Commission.
Following the cessation of activities of the EAC at the end of
1998, the applicants were integrated into the Commission’s                Contrary to the defendant’s contention, she is indeed to be
staff.                                                                    regarded as unemployed for the purpose of Article 28a. Her
                                                                          rejection of the renewal of the term of employment is not
                                                                          comparable to resignation. On the contrary, her fixed-term
By the present action, the applicants challenge the Com-                  employment came to an end in the usual way, which
mission’s decision to offer them contracts as members of the              substantiates the claim for an unemployment allowance.
temporary staff for a duration of two years, renewable for one
year, under Article 2(b) of the of the Conditions of Employment
of other servants of the European Communities.


title: Case T-54/11: Action brought on 27 January 2011 — Spain v Commission

text:
               12.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/33

         Action brought on 27 January 2011 — Spain v Commission
   (Case T-54/11)
   2011/C 80/58
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2010) 7700 of 16 November 2010 reducing the financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the Objective 1 integrated operational programme for Andalucía (2000-2006) CCI No 2000.ES.16.1.PO.003, in so far as it imposes a financial correction of 100 % on the ERDF-financed expenditure for contracts No 2075/2003 and No 2120/2005;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 39(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1), as the Commission failed to take a decision within the period of three months from the date of the hearing or, as the case may be, from the date on which the supplementary information was supplied by the Spanish authorities.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement, by reason of incorrect application, of Article 39(3)(b) of Regulation No 1260/1999, since the Commission applies a financial correction to contracts No 2075/2003 and No 2120/2005 on the ground of alleged irregularities in the procedure followed in awarding those contracts, whereas the use of the negotiated procedure without prior publication of a tender notice was perfectly justified by the provisions of Article 6(3)(b) and (c) of Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Administratif, Paris, by order of that court of 12 June 1996 in the case of SA Laboratoires Sarget against Fonds d'Intervention et Régularisation du Marché du Sucre (Case C-270/96)

text:
No C 294/6             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5 . 10 . 96
Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven,                       Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 12 June
represented by M. van Empel, of the Amsterdam Bar, and T.              1996 , received at the Court Registry on 8 August 1996 , for a
Janssens, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in          preliminary ' ruling in the case of Société des Sucreries et
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue                      Raffineries d'Erstein against Fonds d'Intervention et
Goethe .                                                               Régularisation du Marché du Sucre , on the following
                                                                       questions :
The appellants claim that the Court should :
                                                                       — In an industrial site which processes sugar beet into
1 . Set aside the order of the president of the Court of First               white sugar, in which the first-stage installations take
     Instance in Case T- 18/96 R;                                            delivery of the sugar beet, process it and extract the
                                                                             sugar-bearing liquids and the second-stage installations
2 . Suspend payment by the               Stichting Certificatie              convert into white sugar the liquids and syrups in
     Kraanverhuurbedrijf ( SCK ) of the fine imposed on it by                question, which can be enriched by the addition of raw
     the Commission in the decision contested in the main                    cane sugar from the French Overseas Departments, can
     proceedings until the Court of First Instance has given                 the said second-stage installations, for the purposes of
     judgment in those proceedings , without requiring the                   the grant of refining aids for the refining of that sugar
     SCK to provide security in the form of a bank guarantee                  from the Overseas Departments, be regarded at all times
     or other security;                                                       as a 'production unit' and as a 'refinery' within the
                                                                             meaning of Regulations ( EEC ) No 1785/81 ('), Article 9
3 . Suspend payment by the Federatie Nederlandse                              and ( EEC ) No 2225/86 ( 2 )?
     Kranverhuurbedrijven ( FNK ) of the fine imposed on it
     by the Commission in the decision contested in the main           — If the answer is no, can such a complex of installations ,
     proceedings until the Court of First Instance has given                  intermittently and for non-continuous periods , be
     judgment in those proceedings, without requiring the                     regarded as a 'production unit' and as a ' refinery' within
     FNK to provide security in the form of a bank guarantee                  the meaning of those Regulations ?
     or other security;
                                                                       — If the answer to the preceding question is yes, must those
 4 . Order the Commission to grant to SCK and FNK access                      periods be limited to those in which the processing of
     to the files in Cases IV/34.179 , 34.202 , 216 , and to any              raw cane sugar into white sugar is carried out at a
     other files forming the basis for Decision 96/55 1 /EC,                  different time from the processing of syrups extracted
     including the Commission's internal documents relating                   from sugar beet in the first-stage installation on the same
     to consultation between DG III and DG IV concerning                      industrial site ?
     the Commission 's proceedings against FNK and SCK;
 5 . Order the Commission to pay the costs of these                    (') OJ No L 177, 1 . 7 . 1981 , p . 4 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 194, 17. 7. 1986, p . 7.
     proceedings, including the costs of the application for
      interim measures .
 In the alternative :
 6 . Set aside the order of the President of the Court of First
      Instance in Case T-18/96 R of 4 June 1996 and refer the
      case back to the Court of First Instance for another
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
      ruling;                                                          Administratif, Paris, by order of that court of 12 June 1996
                                                                       in the case of SA Laboratoires Sarget against Fonds
 7. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the                             d'lntervention et Regularisation du Marche du Sucre
      proceedings, including the costs of the application for                                   ( Case C-270/96 )
      interim measures .
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/11 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Tribunal
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal                     Administratif ( Administrative Court ), Paris, of 12 June
 Administratif, Paris, by order of that court of 12 June 1996           1996 , received at the Court Registry on 8 August 1996 , for a
 in the case of Societe des Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein          preliminary ruling in the case of SA Laboratoires Sarget
 against Fonds d'lntervention et Regularisation du Marche               against Fonds d'lntervention et Regularisation du Marche
                               du Sucre                                 du Sucre , on the following question :
                         ( Case C-269/96 )
                           ( 96/C 294/ 10 )                             In view of their composition, presentation and functions, do
                                                                        the products ' Sargenor', ' Sarvit', ' Lysivit' and ' Dynamisan '
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 fall within the scope of Council Regulation ( EEC )
  European Communities by an order of the Tribunal                      No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 (M on the classification of
 ---pagebreak---  5 . 10 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 294/7
goods under subheading 30 of the Common Customs Tariff                 criminal proceedings against him should take place in
or another subheading ?                                                another language where nationals of that State in the same
                                                                       circumstances enjoy such a right ?
 (') OJ No L 94 , 9 . 4 . 1986 , p . 9 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammarrätten i
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli by                 Sundsvall, by order of that court of 6 August 1996 in the
orders of that court of 3 July 1996 in criminal proceedings                  case of Anne Kuusijärvi v. Riksförsäkringsverket
pending before it against Antonio Nardi , Alfredo Cipriani                                         Case C-275 /96 )
                   and Bartolomeo Terranova
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/14 )
          ( Cases C-271 /96, C-272/96 and C-273/96 )
                             96/C 294/ 12
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Kammarätten i
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 Sundsvall ( Administrative Court of Appeal, Sundsvall ), of
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                          6 August 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome             14 August 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Anne
District Magistrate's Court, Tivoli Division ) of 3 July 1996 ,        Kuusijärvi v. Riksförsäkringsverket on the following
which were received at the Court Registry on 12 August                 questions :
 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings
pending before it against Antonio Nardi , Alfredo Cipriani
and Bartolomeo Terranova .                                             1 . Does Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 (') apply at all to a
                                                                            person who, before the Regulation became applicable in
                                                                            Sweden, moved from Finland to Sweden and took up
The questions referred by the Pretura Circondariale di                      employment here, but who was not in employment in
Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli to the Court of Justice                 Sweden when the Regulation came into force in Sweden
for a preliminary ruling are identical with those in Case                   and did not come here as an unemployed person after
C-58/95 (1).                                                                the Regulation became applicable in Sweden, but only
                                                                            stayed here at that time as an unemployed person after a
(') OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 6 .                                   previous period of employment and then drew Swedish
                                                                            unemployment benefit. That is to say, can a person in
                                                                            that situation claim that, after 1 January 1994, on the
                                                                            basis of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , he or she is
                                                                            covered by Swedish legislation as regards entitlement to
                                                                            Swedish social security benefits in the form of parental
                                                                            benefit ?
References for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di Bolzano, Silandro Division, by orders of
that court of 2 August 1996 in the criminal proceedings                If that question is answered in the affirmative, the following
pending before that court against Horst Otto Bickel and                questions also need to be answered :
                             Ulrich Franz
                (Cases C-274/96a and C-274/96 )                        2 . Is Article 13 ( 2 ) ( f) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 , in
                           ( 96/C 294/ 13                                   conjunction with Article 10 ( b ) of Regulation
                                                                            No 574/72 ( 2 ), to be understood as meaning that a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Member State is not precluded from introducing a
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                               condition of residence in its territory in order for a
Circondariale ( District Magistrates ' Court ), Bolzano,                    person who has ceased working there to remain covered
Silandro Division, of 2 August 1996 , which was received at                 by that country's legislation as regards cash maternity
                                                                            benefits ?
the Court Registry on 12 August 1996 , for a preliminary
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court
against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz on the following            3 . Is Article 22 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 to be
question :                                                                  understood as meaning that, if a person begins to draw
                                                                            cash maternity benefits in a competent State, that person
Do the principles of non-discrimination within the meaning                  retains entitlement, on the conditions applying
of the first paragraph of Article 6 , the right of citizens of the          according to that Article , to those cash benefits when
Union to move and reside within the meaning of Article 8a                   moving to another Member State only on condition that
and the freedom to provide services within the meaning of                   the person concerned fulfils all the provisions of the
Article 59 of the Treaty mean that a citizen of the Union who               legislation applied by the competent country, that is to
is a national of a Member State and resides in another                      say including the requirement, laid down in those
Member State must be granted the right to require that                      provisions , that the person concerned must be resident


title: Case C-329/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — Iride SpA, formerly Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA v European Commission, A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA (Appeal — State aid — Aid granted to public utilities — Tax exemptions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Standing — Legal interest)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — Iride SpA, formerly Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA v European Commission, A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA
   (Case C-329/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest)
   2012/C 49/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Iride SpA, formerly Azienda Mediterranea Gas e Acqua SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Bronzolo, M. Merola and T. Ubaldi, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucca, E. Righini and D. Grespan, Agents), A2A SpA, formerly ASM Brescia SpA

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-300/02 AMGA v Commission, by which the General Court rejected as inadmissible an application for the annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal.

               2.

               Orders Iride SpA to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs relating to the request for replacement of grounds.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case C-585/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission (Appeal — Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation — Freezing of funds — Restriction of transfers of funds — Assistance to designated entities in evading or violating restrictive measures)

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/15

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 March 2015 — Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG v Council of the European Union, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, European Commission
   (Case C-585/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Restrictive measures taken against the Islamic Republic of Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Restriction of transfers of funds - Assistance to designated entities in evading or violating restrictive measures))
   (2015/C 138/19)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG (represented by: S. Jeffrey, S. Ashley and A. Irvine, Solicitors, H. Hohmann, Rechtsanwalt, D. Wyatt QC and R. Blakeley, Barrister)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by F. Naert and M. Bishop, acting as Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: V. Kaye, acting as Agent, and by R. Palmer, Barrister), European Commission

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2)

               Orders Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 15, 18.1.2014.


title: Case T-469/17: Action brought on 28 July 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/38

         Action brought on 28 July 2017 — The Scotch Whisky Association v EUIPO — José Estévez (JOHN COR)
   (Case T-469/17)
   (2017/C 309/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: The Scotch Whisky Association (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Rodríguez Domínguez and J. Gracia Albero, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Estévez, SA (Jerez de la Frontera, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark ‘JOHN COR’ — European Union trade mark No 10 965 937

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 31 May 2017 in Case R 1290/2016-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.

               —

               Infringement of Article 52(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g) and (j), of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-596/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

text:
               27.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy) lodged on 23 November 2016 — Enzo Di Puma v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)
   (Case C-596/16)
   (2017/C 063/20)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte suprema di cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Enzo Di Puma

      Respondent: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that, when a court has delivered a final judgment finding a defendant not to have committed the criminal offence alleged, this precludes the initiation or prosecution of further proceedings based on the same facts with a view to the imposition of penalties which, on account of their nature and severity, may be regarded as criminal penalties, without it being necessary for the national court to make any further assessment?

               2.

               In assessing the effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of penalties, in the context of determining whether there has been a breach of the principle ne bis in idem referred to in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must the national court take into account the limits for sanctions laid down in Directive 2014/57/EU? (1)

      (1)  Directive 2014/57/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on criminal sanctions for market abuse (market abuse directive) (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 179).


title: Case C-311/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 7 June 2013 — O. Tümer v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 7 June 2013 — O. Tümer v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen
   (Case C-311/13)
   2013/C 252/31
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: O. Tümer

      Defendant: Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen

      Question referred

   Should the Insolvency Directive, (1) in particular Articles 2, 3 and 4 of that Directive, given its basis in Article 137(2) of the EC Treaty (now Article 153(2) of the TFEU), be interpreted as meaning that a national rule such as Article 3(3) and Article 61 of the [Werkloosheidswet], under which a foreign national who is a national of a third country and who does not hold a valid residence permit in the Netherlands within the meaning of Article 8(a) to (e) and (l) of the Vreemdelingenwet 2000 is not regarded as an employee, is incompatible with it, even in a case such as that of the appellant, who has applied for an insolvency benefit, who under civil law must be regarded as an employee and who meets the other conditions for it to be granted?

      (1)  Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (Codified version) (OJ 2008 L 283, p. 36).


title: Action brought on 21 December 1995 by Hamburger Stahlwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-234/95)

text:
2 . 3 . 96          1 EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 64/ 19
Action brought on 21 December 1995 by Hamburger                       from a commercial and entrepreneurial point of view, to
Stahlwerke GmbH against the Commission of the European                terminate a commitment when economic conditions are
                          Communities                                 good, rather than during a recession, and that the limited
                       ( Case T-234/95 )                              credit increase made in 1993 — with the express object of
                                                                      selling the applicant company — was therefore not merely
                           96/C 64/37
                                                                      the only economically appropriate measure to take but also
                                                                      the same measure as would have been taken by any private
              (Language of the case: German)                          entrepreneur in a comparable situation. The Commission
                                                                      did not dispute those arguments in its decision.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     Even on the incorrect assumption that the prolongation and
Instance of the European Communities on 21 December                   extension of the credit facility in December 1 993 constituted
1995 by Hamburger Stahlwerke GmbH, of Hamburg                         a grant of aid, it is clear in any event that this could only
( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Axel Lohde,           apply as regards an insignificant part.
Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Lucy Dupong of Messrs
Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      Action brought on 24 December 1995 by Dr Anthony
— annul the decision of the Commission of 31 October
                                                                      Goldstein against the Commission of the European
     1995 concerning the grant of State aid by the Free and                                     Communities
     Hanseatic City of Hamburg to the ECSC steel
     undertaking Hamburger Stahlwerke GmbH, Hamburg                                          ( Case T-235/95 )
     — SG(95 ) D/14318/K(95 ) 2754 final,                                                       ( 96/C 64/38 )
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                                             (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
The claim is founded on infringement of essential                     Instance of the European Communities on 24 December
procedural requirements, in the form of the decision having           1995 by Dr Anthony Goldstein, represented by Raymond St
been based on incorrect facts and in the form of a breach of
                                                                      John Murphy of Merriman White, Solicitors, 3 King's
the principle of the right to a fair hearing, on infringement of      Bench Walk , Inner Temple , London .
the ECSC Treaty and of the legal rules applicable to its
implementation, and on an error of assessment.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
In particular:
                                                                      — annul the Commission's Decision of 16 October 1995
The loan made in December 1992 increasing the credit                       refusing, inter alia, to reconsider the Decision of
facility by DM 20 million did not constitute aid . The                     20 January 1994 in the light of the factual and legal
applicant considers in that regard that the Free and                       information submitted for its assessment in accordance
Hanseatic City of Hamburg and the Hamburgische                             with the principles laid down by the Treaty as
Landesbank must have taken into account the fact that the                  interpreted by the judgments of the Court of Justice,
total loans made by the Hamburgische Landesbank to the
applicant would be treated, in the event of the bankruptcy of         — order the Commission to pay the costs .
the applicant, as having replaced equity capital . The
Commission's view that the prolongation and extension of
the credit facility in December 1993 also constituted aid,            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
because the conduct of the Free and Hanseatic City of
Hamburg was not comparable with that of a normal                      On 10 August 1993 the applicant, a Community medical
commercial investor, is incorrect.                                    specialist in rheumatology submitted to the Commission
                                                                      under Article 3 ( 2 ) of Council Regulation No 17 an
By contrast, the Federal Government pointed out in its                application for a finding that the General Medical Council
communication to the Commission of 18 August 1995 that                ( GMC ), a statutory body which regulates the medical
the applicant's subsidiary company in Euskirchen, the                 profession in the territory of the United Kingdom, had
annual production capacity of which amounted to 80 000                infringed Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty . According to
tonnes, had finally been closed down, and that that closure           the applicant's complaint, the GMC :
was to be taken into account as offsetting grants of aid, even
 outside the procedure laid down by Article 95 of the ECSC            — restricts persons holding a Community medical
Treaty, in accordance with the principle of equal treatment.               specialist diploma issued pursuant to Council Directive
In its communication of 7 February 1995 , the Federal                      93/1 6/EC from having their specialist status publicized
 Government further stated that it could only be reasonable,               in the medical register, and


title: Case C-463/08: Action brought on 27 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/20

         Action brought on 27 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-463/08)
   (2008/C 327/33)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M.A. Rabanal Suárez, acting as Agents

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, and, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit laid down to transpose Directive 2005/36/EC expired on 20 October 2007.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 225, p. 22.


title: Case T-279/11: Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission (Non-contractual liability — Agriculture — Sugar — Exceptional measures — Availability of supply on the EU market — 2010/11 marketing year — Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals — Sufficiently serious infringement — Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 — Principle of non-discrimination — Proportionality — Legitimate expectations — Duty of diligence and the principle of sound administration)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 29 November 2016 — T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission
   (Case T-279/11) (1)

   ((Non-contractual liability - Agriculture - Sugar - Exceptional measures - Availability of supply on the EU market - 2010/11 marketing year - Rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals - Sufficiently serious infringement - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 - Principle of non-discrimination - Proportionality - Legitimate expectations - Duty of diligence and the principle of sound administration))
   (2017/C 022/25)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: T & L Sugars Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda (Santa Iria de Azóia, Portugal) (represented initially by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer, and D. Slater, Solicitor, and subsequently by D. Waelbroeck)

      Interveners in support of the applicants: DAI — Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial, SA (Coruche, Portugal) (represented by M. Mendes Pereira, lawyer), RAR — Refinarias de Açúcar Reunidas, SA (Porto, Portugal) (represented by M. Mendes Pereira) and SFIR Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA (Cesena, Italy) and SFIR Raffineria di Brindisi SpA (Cesena) (represented by P. Buccarelli and M. Todino, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by A. Demeneix, P. Rossi and N. Donnelly, and subsequently by P. Rossi and P. Ondrůšek, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, D. Colas and C. Candat, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by E. Sitbon and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents) and Comité européen des fabricants de sucre (CEFS) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by C. Pitschas, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action based on Article 268 TFEU for damages for the loss which the applicants allegedly suffered, first, as a result of the adoption of Commission Regulation (EU) No 222/2011 of 3 March 2011 laying down exceptional measures as regards the release of out-of-quota sugar and isoglucose on the Union market at reduced surplus levy during marketing year 2010/11 (OJ 2011 L 60, p. 6), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 293/2011 of 23 March 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient, rejecting further applications and closing the period for submitting applications for available quantities of out-of-quota sugar to be sold on the Union market at reduced surplus levy (OJ 2011 L 79, p. 8), Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 302/2011 of 28 March 2011 opening an exceptional import tariff quota for certain quantities of sugar in the 2010/11 marketing year (OJ 2011 L 81, p. 8) and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 393/2011 of 19 April 2011 fixing the allocation coefficient for the issuing of import licences applied for from 1 to 7 April 2011 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending submission of applications for such licences (OJ 2011 L 104, p. 39), and secondly, as a result of the Commission’s refusal to take the necessary measures to re-establish availability of supply in raw cane sugar.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders T & L Sugars Ltd and Sidul Açúcares, Unipessoal Lda, on the one hand, and the European Commission, on the other, to bear their own costs relating to the plea of inadmissibility which gave rise to the judgment of 6 June 2013, T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission (T-279/11, EU:T:2013:299);

               3.

               Orders T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission, relating to the merits of the action;

               4.

               Orders the French Republic and the Council of the European Union to bear their own costs, including those relating to the plea of inadmissibility which gave rise to the judgment of 6 June 2013, T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission (T-279/11, EU:T:2013:299);

               5.

               Orders DAI Sociedade de Desenvolvimento Agro-Industrial, SA, RAR — Refinarias de Açùcar Reunidas, SA, SFIR — Società Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA, SFIR Raffineria di Brindisi SpA and the Comité européen des fabricants de sucre (CEFS) to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 232, 6.8.2011.


title: Case C-629/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 24 December 2010 — TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, International Air Transport Association, The Queen v Civil Aviation Authority

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) made on 24 December 2010 — TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, International Air Transport Association, The Queen v Civil Aviation Authority
   (Case C-629/10)
   2011/C 89/18
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: TUI Travel plc, British Airways plc, easyJet Airline Co. Ltd, International Air Transport Association

      Defendant: Civil Aviation Authority

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) to be interpreted as requiring the compensation provided for in Article 7 to be paid to passengers whose flights are subject to delay within the meaning of Article 6, and if so in what circumstances?

               2.

               If question 1 is answered in the negative, are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 invalid, in whole or in part, for breach of the principle of equal treatment?

               3.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, are Articles 5-7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 invalid, in whole or in part, for (a) inconsistency with the Montreal Convention; (b) breach of the principle of proportionality; and/or (c) breach of the principle of legal certainty?

               4.

               If question 1 is answered in the affirmative and question 3 in the negative, what if any limits are to be placed upon the temporal effects of the Court's ruling in this case?

               5.

               If question 1 is answered in the negative, what if any effect is to be given to the decision of Sturgeon between 19 November 2009 and the date of the Court's ruling In this case?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement
   OJ L 46, p. 1


title: Case C-465/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (C-465/09 P and C-468/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava (C-466/09 P and C-469/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (C-467/09 P and C-470/09 P) v European Commission, Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco, Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask) (Appeals — State aid — Action for annulment — Decision initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC — Subsequent final decisions finding that State aid schemes implemented by Spain in 1993 for certain newly established firms in Álava, Vizcaya and Guipúzcoa were not compatible with the common market — Corporation tax exemptions — Lis pendens — Concept of ‘authorised aid’ — Legitimate expectations — Compliance with a reasonable time-limit — No notification)

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 June 2011 — Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (C-465/09 P and C-468/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava (C-466/09 P and C-469/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (C-467/09 P and C-470/09 P) v European Commission, Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco, Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja, Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask)
   (Case C-465/09 P) (1)

   (Appeals - State aid - Action for annulment - Decision initiating the formal investigation procedure under Article 88(2) EC - Subsequent final decisions finding that State aid schemes implemented by Spain in 1993 for certain newly established firms in Álava, Vizcaya and Guipúzcoa were not compatible with the common market - Corporation tax exemptions - Lis pendens - Concept of ‘authorised aid’ - Legitimate expectations - Compliance with a reasonable time-limit - No notification)
   2011/C 226/07
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (C-465/09 P and C-468/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava (C-466/09 P and C-469/09 P), Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa (C-467/09 P and C-470/09 P) (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, abogados)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and C. Urraca Caviedes, Agents), Comunidad autónoma del País Vasco — Gobierno Vasco (I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, abogados), Comunidad autónoma de La Rioja (J. Criado Gámez and M. Martínez Aguirre, abogados), Confederación Empresarial Vasca (Confebask)

      Intervener in support of the appellants: Kingdom of Spain (N. Díaz Abad)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 9 September 2009 in Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01 and T-86/02 to T-88/02 Diputación Foral de Álava and Others v Commission, by which the Court held, in Cases T-30/01 to T-32/01, that there was no longer any need to adjudicate on an application for annulment of Commission Decision of 28 November 2000 to initiate the procedure under Article 88(2) EC in relation to the tax advantages in the form of corporation tax exemption for certain newly established firms granted by provisions adopted by the Diputación Foral de Álava, the Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa and the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, in the form of corporation tax exemption for certain newly established firms and, in Cases T-86/02 to T-88/02, dismissed an application for annulment of Commission Decisions 2003/28/EC, 2003/86/EC and 2003/192/EC of 20 December 2001 on a State aid scheme in the form of corporation tax exemption implemented by Spain in 1993 for certain newly established firms in Álava (T-86/02), Vizcaya (T-87/02) and Guipúzcoa (T-88/02) (OJ 2003 L 17, p. 20, OJ 2003 L 40, p. 11, and OJ 2003 L 77, p. 1, respectively)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeals.

               2.

               Orders the Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, the Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and the Territorio Histórico de Guipúzcoa — Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa to pay in equal shares the costs relating to the present appeals.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.02.2011.


title: Case T-313/16: Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Grupo Riberebro Integral and Riberebro Integral v Commission

text:
               8.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/28

         Action brought on 21 June 2016 — Grupo Riberebro Integral and Riberebro Integral v Commission
   (Case T-313/16)
   (2016/C 287/34)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Grupo Riberebro Integral, SL (Alfaro, Spain) and Riberebro Integral, SA (Alfaro, Spain) (represented by: R. Allendesalazar Corcho and A. Rincón García-Loygorri, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the General Court should:

               —

               pursuant to Article 263 TFEU, annul Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 1933 final of 6 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in Case AT.39965 — Mushrooms, as regards the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants, since it is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment by the European Commission of the facts on the basis of which it refused to recognise the applicants’ inability to pay;

               —

               in the alternative, pursuant to the unlimited jurisdiction granted in Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 and in accordance with Article 261 TFEU, vary Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2016) 1933 final of 6 April 2016 relating to a proceeding under 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement, in Case AT.39965 — Mushrooms, reducing the fine imposed on Riberebro;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present proceedings arise from the leniency application submitted by a specific company to the European Commission, in relation to that company’s participation in a cartel in the canned mushrooms sector. As the text of the decision itself states, that cartel sought to stabilise the mushroom market and stop the decline of prices.
   The applicants do not dispute the facts or their legal characterisation, which they have already accepted in cooperating in the leniency procedure and in their reply to the statement of objections, in which they stated that they accepted the description and legal assessment of the facts. In the present proceedings, it is the assessment and proportionality of the fine imposed which are contested.
   In support of their action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment by the defendant.

                           —

                           It is submitted in that regard that the manifest error of assessment referred to vitiates the assessment of the facts on the basis of which the applicants’ inability to pay was rejected. Indeed, the imposition of the fine irretrievably jeopardises the applicants’ economic viability, would cause their assets to lose all their value and fails to take into account the social and economic context.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the failure to observe the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           It is submitted in that regard that there is a failure, in the contested decision, to take into account the applicants’ limited portfolio of products.


title: Case C-144/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 March 2013 — VDP Dental Laboratory NV, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               22.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 March 2013 — VDP Dental Laboratory NV, Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-144/13)
   2013/C 178/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: VDP Dental Laboratory NV, Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive (1) be interpreted to mean that if a national statutory provision, contrary to the Directive, provides for an exemption (in respect of which the right to deduct is excluded), the taxable person is entitled to the right to deduct in reliance on Article 17(1) and (2) of the Sixth Directive?

               2.

               Should Article 143(a) and Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive (2) be interpreted to mean that the exemptions from VAT contained in those provisions do not apply to the importation and the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses? If the answer to that question is in the negative, is the application of the exemptions then subject to the condition that the dental prostheses must have been supplied from another country by a dentist or dental technician and/or supplied to a dentist or dental technician?

      (1)  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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

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


title: Case T-307/07: Action brought on 14 August 2007 — Hansgrohe v OHIM (AIRSHOWER)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/24

         Action brought on 14 August 2007 — Hansgrohe v OHIM (AIRSHOWER)
   (Case T-307/07)
   (2007/C 235/44)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Hansgrohe AG (Schiltach, Germany) (represented by S. Weidert and J. Zehnsdorf, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 31 May 2007 in Appeal No R 1281/2006-1 concerning trade mark Application No 4 869 319;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘AIRSHOWER’ for goods in class 11 (Application No 4 869 319).

      Decision of the Examiner: partial rejection of the Application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the Appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), because the sign applied for is of a distinctive character and is not descriptive.

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