title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 January 2000 in Case C-254/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH (Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)— Sale on rounds of baker's, butcher's and grocer's wares — Territorial restriction)

text:
18.3.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                 C 79/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                            consumer, reasonably well informed and reasonably observant
                                                                                and circumspect, is misled by that name, believing it to imply
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                         that the product possesses characteristics which it does not have.
                        of 13 January 2000                                   — It is for the national court to decide, having regard to the
                                                                                presumed expectations of the average consumer, whether the
                                                                                name is misleading.
in Case C-220/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Landgericht Köln): Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH &                         — Community law does not preclude the national court, should it
            Co. OHG v Lancaster Group GmbH (1)                                    experience particular difficulty in deciding whether or not the
                                                                                name at issue is misleading, from commissioning, in accordance
(Free movement of goods — Marketing of a cosmetic product                         with its national law, a survey of public opinion or an expert
whose name includes the term lifting — Articles 30 and 36                         opinion for the purposes of clarification.
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC and
                30 EC) — Directive 76/768/EEC)
                                                                             (1) JO C 258 of 15.8.1998.
                           (2000/C 79/01)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
In Case C-220/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landgericht Köln,                                           (Fifth Chamber)
Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Estée Lauder Cosmetics GmbH &                                               of 13 January 2000
Co. OHG and Lancaster Group GmbH — on the interpretation
of Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Article 6(3) of Council Directive              in Case C-254/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws                  from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Schutzverband gegen
of the Member States relating to cosmetic products (OJ 1976                   unlauteren Wettbewerb v TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH (1)
L 262, p. 169), as amended by Council Directive 88/667/EEC
of 21 December 1988 (OJ 1988 L 382, p. 46) and Council                       (Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 151, p. 32)                   Article 28 EC) — Sale on rounds of baker’s, butcher’s and
— the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward,                                  grocer’s wares — Territorial restriction)
President of the Chamber, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rappor-
teur), C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges; N. Fen-                                         (2000/C 79/02)
nelly, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 January 2000,
in which it has ruled:                                                                          (Language of the case: German)
— Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty (now, after amendment,
    Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) and Article 6(3) of Council Directive          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
    76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws                                  in the European Court Reports)
    of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, as amended
    by Council Directive 88/667/EEC of 21 December 1988 and                  In Case C-278/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
    Council Directive 93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993, do not preclude             the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Oberster
    the application of national legislation which prohibits the              Gerichtshof, Austria, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
    importation and marketing of a cosmetic product whose name               ings pending before that court between Schutzverband gegen
    incorporates the term ‘lifting’ in cases where the average               unlauteren Wettbewerb and TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH — on
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/2                   EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          18.3.2000
the interpretation of Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after                Article 4(1) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May
amendment, Article 28 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),                       1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,                        relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax:
L. Sevón (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and M. Wathe-              uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that,
let, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,           where a person’s sole economic activity, within the meaning of that
has given a judgment on 13 January 2000, in which it has                     provision, consists in the letting of an item of tangible property to a
ruled:                                                                       company or a partnership, such as a partnership governed by
                                                                             Netherlands law, of which he is a member, that letting must be
Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC)            regarded as an independent activity within the meaning of that
precludes national legislation which provides that bakers, butchers          provision.
and grocers may not make sales on rounds in a given administrative
district, such as an Austrian Verwaltungsbezirk, unless they also            (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.
pursue their commercial activity at a permanent establishment
situated in that administrative district or in an adjacent municipality,
where they offer for sale the same goods as they do on rounds.
(1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 27 January 2000
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             in Case C-164/98 P: DIR International Film Srl and Others
                                                                                v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                             (MEDIA Programme — Criteria for the grant of loans —
                         of 27 January 2000                                           Discretionary power — Statement of reasons)
in Case C-23/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                                (2000/C 79/04)
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, Netherlands): Staatsse-
              cretaris van Financiën v J. Heerma (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Transactions between a partner and
                            a partnership)                                   In Case C-164/98 P, DIR International Film Srl, established in
                                                                             Rome (Italy), Nostradamus Enterprises Ltd, established in
                           (2000/C 79/03)                                    London (United Kingdom),Union PN Srl, established in Rome,
                                                                             United International Pictures BV, established in Amsterdam
                                                                             (Netherlands), United International Pictures AB, established
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                           in Stockholm (Sweden), United International Pictures APS,
                                                                             established in Copenhagen (Denmark), United International
                                                                             Pictures A/S, established in Oslo (Norway), United Inter-
                                                                             national Pictures EPE, established in Athens (Greece), United
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                             International Pictures OY, established in Helsinki (Finland),
                    in the European Court Reports)                           and United International Pictures y Cı́a SRC, established
                                                                             in Madrid (Spain), represented by A. Vandencasteele and
In Case C-23/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                 O. Speltdoorn, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Hoge Raad der                      in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10 Rue
Nederlanden, (Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the                  Mathias Hardt, appeal against the judgment of the Court of
proceedings pending before that court between Staatssecretaris               First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)
van Financiën and J. Heerma — on the interpretation of                       of 19 February 1998 in Joined Cases T-369/94 and T-85/95
Article 4(1) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of                  DIR International Film and Others v Commission [1998] ECR
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                   II-357, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                   to the proceedings being The Commission of the European
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1)                 Communities, represented by K. Banks — the Court (Sixth
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,                    Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch                     Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. Hirsch
(Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, Advocate General:                     (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges, Advocate General,
G. Cosmas, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has                S. Alber; L. Hewlett, Administrator for the Registrar, has given
given a judgment on 27 January 2000 in which it has ruled:                   a judgment on 27 January 2000, in which it:


title: Case F-106/07: Action brought on 5 October 2007 — Giaprakis v Committee of the Regions

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/49

         Action brought on 5 October 2007 — Giaprakis v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-106/07)
   (2007/C 297/98)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Stavros Giaprakis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union (CoR)
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Administration Director of the CoR of 21 November 2006 to recover the amounts paid to the applicant in application of the correction coefficient for that part of his remuneration transferred to France between April 2004 and June 2005, in the amount of EUR 1 246,06;

               —

               order the CoR to repay to the applicant the sum of EUR 1 246,06 withheld from his pay, plus default interest at the rate of 8 % per annum from 1 December 2006, the date of the recovery, until payment in full;

               —

               order the CoR to pay to him the sum of EUR 1 000 as compensation for the non-material loss which he has suffered as a result of the contested decision;

               —

               order the CoR to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on the very similar pleas in law relied on in Case F-59/07 (1).

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007, p. 51.


title: Case C-336/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 19 July 2007 — Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH & Co. KG v Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 19 July 2007 — Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH & Co. KG v Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk
   (Case C-336/07)
   (2007/C 247/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Hannover
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kabel Deutschland Vertrieb und Service GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Niedersächsische Landesmedienanstalt für privaten Rundfunk

      Interveners: Norddeutscher Rundfunk, Hamburg, and 39 others
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is a provision like Paragraph 37(1) of the Niedersächsisches Mediengesetz (Lower Saxony Law on the Media) compatible with Article 31(1) of the Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC if a cable network operator is forced to provide access, on more than half of the channels permanently usable for analogue broadcasting which are available on its networks, to programmes which — although they do not cover the whole of the Land of Lower Saxony — are already being broadcast terrestrially according to the DVB-T standard?

               2.

               Is a provision like Paragraph 37(1) of the Niedersächsisches Mediengesetz compatible with Article 31(1) of the Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC if a cable network operator is forced to provide access to television programmes on its analogue cable networks even in those areas of the Land in which the cable end-user would in any event be in a position to receive the same television programmes terrestrially according to the DVB-T standard by means of a terrestrial antenna and a decoder?

               3.

               Are ‘television … services’ within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 31(1) of the Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC to be interpreted as including providers of media services or telemedia, for example teleshopping?

               4.

               Is a provision like Paragraph 37(2) of the Niedersächsisches Mediengesetz compatible with Article 31(1) of the Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC if, in the event of a shortage of channels, the competent national authority has to establish an order of priority of applicants which results in full use of the channels available to the cable network operator?


title: Case T-287/16: Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Belgium v Commission

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/62

         Action brought on 30 May 2016 — Belgium v Commission
   (Case T-287/16)
   (2016/C 270/68)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J. C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents, and by É. Grégoire and J. Mariani, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016, in so far as it excludes from European Union financing in relation to the Kingdom of Belgium an amount of EUR 9 601 619,00 (budget item 6701);

               —

               in the alternative, partially annul that decision to exclude from European Union financing the amount of EUR 9 601 619 in so far as it includes the sum of EUR 4 106 470,02 from which the EAGF has already benefited;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 31(1) and Article 32(8) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 2005 L 209, p. 1), on the ground that the Commission fails to show that the expenditure effected by the Belgian paying agency is not compatible with EU law and that the failure to recover or the unlawfulness was caused by irregularity or negligence attributable to the Bureau d’intervention et de restitution belge (the Belgian Intervention and Restitution Board) (BIRB).

               2.

               Second plea in law, invoked in the alternative, alleging an infringement of Article 31(2) of Regulation No 1290/2005 and of the principle of proportionality on the ground that the amount excluded does not correspond to the significance of the lack of conformity found and that the financial loss caused to the European Union was not taken into account.


title: Case T-257/01: Action brought on 8 October 2001 by Frosch Touristik GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
C 3/38                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5.1.2002
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicants are both Chinese producers of electronic
compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) and export those lamps to             —     amend the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the
the European Community.                                                       Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
                                                                              Marks and Designs) of 31 July 2001 concerning appeal
                                                                              No R 789/1999-2 so that it states that there are no
On 17 May 2000, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping                      grounds under Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation on the
proceeding concerning imports of CFL-i originating in China,                  Community trade mark for refusing to register the
after the lodging by the European Lighting Companies Feder-                   Community trade mark AIR MARITIME under appli-
ation of a complaint. During the anti-dumping investigation.                  cation No 81.331;
Mexico was used, pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the Basic
Regulation, as the analogue market economy country for the
purposes of determining the normal value of exports from
China.                                                                  —     in the alternative, annul the decision of the second Board
                                                                              of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                              Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 July 2001
                                                                              concerning appeal No R 789/1999-2 and order the Office
The applicants co-operated during the investigation and were
                                                                              for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to continue the
granted individual treatment The dumping margins were
                                                                              registration procedure relating to the Community trade
therefore determined using the normal value of the export
                                                                              mark AIR MARITIME under registration No 81.331
prices of Philips Mexicana , a subsidiary of one of the primary
                                                                              without regard to the opposing trade mark, i.e. the
complainants, as well as the normal value of the applicants’
                                                                              German Trade Mark Wz 1.186.278 ‘air marin’, and
export prices.
In support of their claims, the applicants submit that, by              —     order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.
adopting the Commission’s findings, the Council infringed the
basic anti-dumping Regulation, in that the Commission should
have used Article 2(7)(b) and not 2(7)(a) of that Regulation.
Alternatively, the applicants argue that the normal value
determined under Article 2(7)(a) was manifestly unreasonable
and discriminatory.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Applicant for the Com-        The applicant
Action brought on 8 October 2001 by Frosch Touristik                    munity trade mark:
GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the
         Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
                                                                        Community trade mark          The word mark ‘AIR MARITIME’
                                                                        applied for:                  for goods and services in Class 16,
                        (Case T-257/01)                                                               39 and 42 — Application
                                                                                No 81.331
                          (2002/C 3/66)
                                                                        Proprietor of the oppos-      Air Marin Flugreisen GmbH
(Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with              ing right to a trade mark
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Language in which the         or sign:
                 application was drafted: German)
                                                                        Opposing right to trade       The German word mark ‘air mar-
                                                                        mark or sign:                 in’ for services in Class 39
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 October 2001 by Frosch Tour-                  Decision of the Oppo-         Rejection of the application for
istik GmbH, Munich, represented by Hans Georg Zeiner and                sition Division:              the services ‘travel agency;
Brigitte Heamann-Dunn, lawyers, with an address for service                                           arrangement and organisation of
in Luxembourg, the other party before the Board of Appeal                                             travel; transport of persons’ in
being Air Marin Flugreisen GmbH, Bonn (Germany).                                                      Class 39
 ---pagebreak--- 5.1.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 3/39
Decision of the Board of      Dismissal of the appeal                   respect to other economic and non-economic injuries arising
Appeal:                                                                 therefrom. The payment of these customs duties and VAT has
                                                                        allegedly been avoided by smuggling cigarettes into the
Grounds for bringing          No likelihood of confusion within         European Union. This is the second time that the European
the action:                   the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of         Community has commenced such proceedings (1). In the
                              Council Regulation (EC) 40/94             current proceedings, the Commission is also acting as agent
                              of 20 December 1993 on the                for Member States for the recovery of these taxes allegedly
                              Community trade mark (1)                  owed to them.
(1) OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.
                                                                        The applicants submit that the Community has no competence
                                                                        to commence these proceedings. According to the applicants,
                                                                        neither the EC Treaty nor any other act confers on the
                                                                        European Commission the competence to act as a legal person,
                                                                        especially not outside the jurisdiction of the Member States, in
                                                                        order independently to protect its financial interests in this
                                                                        way outside the Community or to combat fraud in this way;
Action brought on 15 October 2001 by R.J. Reynolds                      nor is the action in question a joint action by the Commission
Tobacco Holdings, Inc, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Inter-                     and the Member States, since not all Member States are
national, Inc, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and RJR                    involved in the proceedings.
Acquisition Corp. against the Commission of the Euro-
                        pean Communities
                         (Case T-260/01)                                The current proceedings also constitute, according to the
                                                                        applicants, an attempt to recover the allegedly unpaid taxes.
                                                                        The applicants submit that the European Commission has no
                          (2002/C 3/67)                                 competence to collect taxes. This competence lies solely with
                                                                        the Member States within their respective territories. According
                                                                        to the applicants, the Commission should therefore commence
                  (Language of the case: English)                       actions against the Member States for failing properly to apply
                                                                        the Communities’ rules on customs duties and VAT.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              The applicants also submit that the Community is not
European Communities on 15 October 2001 by R.J. Reynolds                competent to act as agent for the Member States in the
Tobacco Holdings, Inc, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco International,             proceedings.
Inc, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and RJR Acquisition
Corp., represented by Mr Paul Lomas and Mr Onno Brouwer
of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, London (United Kingdom).
                                                                        According to the applicants, the Commission has also failed to
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             follow the proper procedure leading up to the decision to
                                                                        commence these proceedings. The Commission should have
                                                                        followed the procedure set out in Article 280 (4) and 251 EC
—     annul the Commission’s decision, which became known               Treaty to adopt measures combatting fraud. Furthermore, the
      to the applicant on 6 August 2001, to commence the
                                                                        Commission has not respected the applicants right to be heard
      second US proceedings;
                                                                        and their right to be provided with reasons. Moreover, the
                                                                        applicants contend that the Commission violated the principle
—     order that the Commission pay the costs of the present            of legal certainty, the rights of defence and due process,
      proceedings, including those of the applicants and                the principle of proportionality and the principle of sound
      intervening parties.                                              administration. Finally, the Applicants contend that the Com-
                                                                        mission misused its powers.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (1) The decision to commence the first proceedings is being contested
                                                                            by the applicants in Case T-379/00 (JO C 79 of 10.3.2001, p. 24).
The applicants are the defendants in legal proceedings brought
by the European Community before a United States Court, in
which the Community is seeking damages in respect of
allegedly unpaid customs duties and VAT, and relief in


title: Case C-162/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Ordinario di Milano by order of that Court of 21 February 2003 in the case of Azienda Agricola (farm) owned by Andrea Balconi (ex Guido) against Region of Lombardy and AGEA (Agency for Agricultural subsidies)

text:
7.6.2003                EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 135/19
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                            tion into groundwater of substances in list II of Directive
Ordinario di Milano by order of that Court of 21 February                      80/68/EEC so as to avoid pollution of that water by these
2003 in the case of Azienda Agricola (farm) owned by                           substances, by not subjecting to prior investigation any
Andrea Balconi (ex Guido) against Region of Lombardy                           disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of the
        and AGEA (Agency for Agricultural subsidies)                           dangerous substances in list I of Directive 80/68/EEC,
                                                                               which might lead to indirect discharge, and by not
                                                                               subjecting to prior investigation all direct discharge of
                          (Case C-162/03)                                      substances in list II of Directive 80/68/EEC and the
                                                                               disposal or tipping for the purpose of disposal of those
                                                                               substances which might lead to indirect discharge, the
                          (2003/C 135/27)
                                                                               Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                               Articles 3, 4 and 5 of Council Directive 80/68/EEC of
                                                                               17 December 1979 ( 1) on the protection of groundwater
                                                                               against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Ordinario di
                                                                         —     declare that, by failing to failing to take the necessary
Milano (Milan District Court) of 21 February 2003, received at
                                                                               measures to record and identify hazardous waste in the
the Court Registry on 7 April 2003, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                               Thriasio Pedio area, where tipping (discharge) of such
in the case of Azienda Agricola (farm) owned by Andrea
                                                                               waste takes place, and, by failing to draw up, either
Balconi (ex Guido) against Region of Lombardy and AGEA
                                                                               separately or in the framework of their general waste
(Agency for Agricultural subsidies) on the following question:
                                                                               management plans, plans for the management of hazard-
                                                                               ous waste in the Thriasio Pedio area, the Hellenic Republic
Must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 (1) of 31 March                   has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) and
1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of                       6(1) of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December
28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the                            1991 on hazardous waste ( 2);
additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of
an administrative penalty with the result that producers are
liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been               —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?
( 1) OJ L 90 of 01.04.1984, p. 10.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
( 2) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                         —     Infringement of Directive 80/68/EEC
                                                                         —     Infringement of Directive 91/689/EEC.
                                                                         (1 ) OJ 1980 L 20, p. 43.
Action brought on 8 April 2003 by the Commission of                      (2 ) OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20.
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                          (Case C-163/03)
                          (2003/C 135/28)
                                                                         Action brought on 10 April 2003 by the Commission of
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before                the European Communities against the French Republic
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by V. Jordana and M. Konstantinidis, of its Legal                                      (Case C-166/03)
Service.
                                                                                (2003/C 135/29)
The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to take the necessary steps to
      prevent the introduction into groundwater of substances            An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      in list I of Directive 80/68/EEC and to limit the introduc-        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 April


title: Case F-65/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Mata Blanco v Commission (Civil service — Internal competition COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD10 — Combating fraud — Respective competences of EPSO and the selection board — Admission tests supervised by the selection board — Oral test — Infringement of the notice of competition — Difference between marks — Evaluation criteria — Equal treatment of candidates — Manifest error of assessment — Principles of transparency and of sound administration — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/26

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 11 December 2012 — Mata Blanco v Commission
   (Case F-65/10) (1)

   (Civil service - Internal competition COM/INT/OLAF/09/AD10 - Combating fraud - Respective competences of EPSO and the selection board - Admission tests supervised by the selection board - Oral test - Infringement of the notice of competition - Difference between marks - Evaluation criteria - Equal treatment of candidates - Manifest error of assessment - Principles of transparency and of sound administration - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 46/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mata Blanco (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Blot, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially B. Eggers and P. Pecho, acting as Agents, then B. Eggers, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for annulment of the EPSO decision not to include the applicant on the reserve list for internal competition ‘COM/INT/OLAF.09/AD10 — Administrators specialised in anti-fraud’ and the reserve list and all the decisions taken on the basis of that list

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Mata Blanco to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 73.


title: Case T-272/16: Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Greece v Commission

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/53

         Action brought on 25 May 2016 — Greece v Commission
   (Case T-272/16)
   (2016/C 270/61)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Κanellopoulos, Ο. Tsirkinidou, Α. Vasilopoulou and D. Ntourntoureka)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested Commission Implementing Decision of 17 Μarch 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), notified under document C(2016) 1509 and published in the Official Journal of the European Union, L 75 of 22 March 2016, p. 16:

                           (a)

                           to the extent to which there is excluded from European Union financing expenditure amounting in total to EUR 166 797 866,22 which was incurred in the decoupled direct aid sector in claim years 2012 and 2013 and in particular there is imposed: (1) a 25 % flat rate financial correction for the year 2012 and (2) a flat rate and one off financial correction for the year 2013;·

                           (b)

                           to the extent to which there is excluded from European Union financing expenditure amounting in total to EUR 3 880 460,50 which was incurred in the sector of Rural Development EAFRD, Axes 1 + 3 — Investment orientated measures (20072013), and in particular there is imposed: (1) a 5 % flat rate financial correction for the financial years 2010 to 2013 for measure 125 and (2) a one off financial correction for the financial years 2011 to 2013;·

                           (c)

                           to the extent to which the final judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 19 Νοvember 2015 in Case Τ-107/14 has not been implemented and consequently the sum of EUR 29 366 975,06 has not been immediately repaid to the Hellenic Republic, and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action the applicant relies on eight grounds for annulment.
   In particular, with respect to the financial correction amounting in total to EUR 166 797 866,22 applied to expenditure which was incurred in the decoupled direct aid sector for the claim years 2012 and 2013, the Hellenic Republic relies on three grounds for annulment.
   The first ground for annulment concerning the correction imposed for the claim year 2012 is based on misinterpretation and misapplication of the provisions of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 796/2004 (1) (and the later Article 2(c) of Regulation No 1120/2009 (2)).
   The second ground for annulment, which also concerns the correction imposed for the claim year 2012, is based on misinterpretation and misapplication of the Guidelines (Document VI/5330/97), with respect to whether the conditions for the imposition of a 25 % financial correction for the year 2012 are met, and it is specifically claimed that the Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion and at the same time both infringed the principle of proportionality (part Α) and erred in the calculation of the financial correction (part B).
   By the third ground for annulment concerning the correction imposed for the claim year 2013 the applicant claims that that correction is unlawful, abusive, based on contradictory reasons, and on misinterpretation and misapplication of the Guidelines (Document VI/5330/97), and is in breach of the principles of sound management, proportionality, ne bis in idem and the applicant’s rights of defence.
   Further, with respect to the financial correction in the sector of Rural Development EAFRD, Axes 1 + 3 — Investment orientated measures (20072013), the applicant relies on four grounds for annulment.
   By the fourth and fifth grounds for annulment, concerning the correction imposed with respect to Measure 125, it is claimed that there is no legal basis, no statement of reasons and error as the facts, given that the Managing Authority acted lawfully and fully within its powers (the fourth ground for annulment), and that the imposition of a 5 % flat rate financial correction for the expenditure which was paid for the financial year 2010, amounting to EUR 506 480,19, was contrary to Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005, (3) since that expenditure was incurred more than 24 months before the Commission gave notification in writing of its inspection findings.
   By the sixth ground for annulment, concerning the correction imposed with respect to Measure 121, the applicant claims that the decision is unlawful, because the correction imposed and the method adopted for the calculation of the correction by the analogous application of Article 63 of Regulation No 809/2014 (4) is incompatible with Article 31 of Regulation No 1290/2005 and with the Guidelines in Commission Document VI/5330/97, and its implementation leads to results that are disproportionate by comparison with the identified deficiencies. In addition, with respect to the same measure, the applicant claims in the action’s seventh ground for annulment that there was no legal basis for the contested decision and no statement of reasons, and that the Guidelines in Document VI/5330/97 of the European Union were infringed.
   The eighth ground for annulment concerns the infringement of Article 266 TFEU with respect to the Commission’s obligation to take measures to ensure the implementation of the judgment of the General Court on the failure to repay the sum of EUR 29 366 975,06 to the Hellenic Republic, after the judgment of the General Court in Case Τ-107/14, and also breach of the principles of sound management, legal certainty and sincere cooperation between the Commission and the Member States.

      (1)  Commission Regulation (ΕC) No 796/2004 of 21 April 2004, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of cross-compliance, modulation and the integrated administration and control system provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ L 141, 2004, p. 18)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (ΕC) No 1120/2009 of 29 October 2009 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of the single payment scheme provided for in Title III of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 establishing common rules for direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers (OJ L 316, 2009, p. 1)

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 of 21 June 2005 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 209, 2005, p. 1)

      (4)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 809/2014 of 17 July 2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1306/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to the integrated administration and control system, rural development measures and cross compliance (OJ L 227, 2014, p. 69)


title: Case T-11/07: Action brought on 12 January 2007 — Frucona Košice v Commission

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/36

         Action brought on 12 January 2007 — Frucona Košice v Commission
   (Case T-11/07)
   (2007/C 56/68)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Frucona Košice a.s. (Košice, Slovak Republic) (represented by: B. Hartnett, O. Geiss, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission's Decision C(2006)2082 final, of 7 June 2006, in state aid Case No C25/2005;

               —

               annul in whole or in part Article 1 of the said decision;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By means of its application, the applicant seeks annulment of the Commission decision of 7 June 2006 on state aid implemented by the Slovak Republic for the applicant (C25/2005), insofar as it treats the applicant as a recipient of incompatible state aid and compels it to repay to the Slovak Republic the entirety of the tax write-off with interest.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on the following ten pleas in law:

               By its first plea, the applicant claims that the Commission manifestly erred when determining the amount of the alleged state aid.

               By its second plea, the applicant submits that the contested decision violates an essential procedural requirement and fails to have regard to Article 33 EC. In fact, the applicant contends it is DG Agriculture and not DG Competition which was the competent directorate to carry out the investigation and take the procedural and formal steps that led to the contested decision.

               By its third plea, the applicant further submits that the contested decision violates Section 3, Annex IV of the Treaty of Accession, Article 253 EC, Article 88 EC and Regulation 659/1999 because the Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue the contested decision.

               By its fourth plea, the applicant contends that the Commission has erred in fact and in law in applying Article 87(1) EC when it found bankruptcy proceedings to be more favourable than the tax settlement.

               By its fifth plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission further erred by finding the tax execution procedure to be more beneficial than the tax settlement.

               By its sixth plea, the applicant submits that the Commission manifestly erred in law and in fact by failing to discharge the burden of proof thereby violating Article 87(1) EC and Article 253 EC. In addition, the applicant submits that the Commission disregarded the legal standards set forth by the Court on the application of the private creditor test.

               By its seventh plea, the applicant claims that the Commission erred in law and fact by failing to adequately assess and have regard to the evidence at its disposal.

               By its eighth plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission erred in law and in fact by taking into account irrelevant evidence such as internal differences within the tax administration.

               By its ninth plea, the applicant further submits that the decision violates Article 253 EC by lacking sufficient reasoning to justify its conclusions.

               Lastly, by its tenth plea, the applicant alleges that the Commission erred by not exempting the tax settlement as restructuring aid and by retroactively applying the 2004 Restructuring Guidelines.


title: Case T-552/12: Action brought on 21 December 2012 — North Drilling v Council

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/22

         Action brought on 21 December 2012 — North Drilling v Council
   (Case T-552/12)
   2013/C 46/39
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: North Drilling Co. (Teheran, Iran) (represented by: J. Viñals Camallonga, L. Barriola Urruticoechea and J. Iriarte Ángel, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Article 2 of Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it concerns it and remove its name from the annex thereto;

               —

               annul Article 1 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, implementing Regulation (EU) 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it concerns it and remove its name from the annex thereto, and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest error

                           —

                           The first plea alleges a manifest error of assessment of the facts on which the contested provisions are based, as they lack any real factual and evidential basis.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging breach of the duty to state reasons

                           —

                           The second plea alleges a breach of the duty to state reasons, as the contested provisions are vitiated in relation to NDC by a statement of reasons which is inadequate, general and stereotypical.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging disregard for the right to judicial protection

                           —

                           The third plea alleges infringement of the right to effective judicial protection with regard to the statement of reasons for the measures, the lack of evidence in relation to the reasons stated and the rights of the defence and the right to property, given that the requirement to state reasons has not been fulfilled, which has an impact on the other rights.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the right to property

                           —

                           The fourth plea is based on infringement of the right to property, since that right was restricted without valid justification.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal treatment

                           —

                           The fifth plea is based on infringement of the principle of equal treatment, since the relative position of the applicant has been prejudiced without reason.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers

                           —

                           The sixth plea in law is based on misuse of powers, since there is objective, precise and consistent evidence which supports the argument that the sanction was adopted for purposes other than those put forward by the Council.


title: Case C-193/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained — Prior examination of knowledge of the languages of the host Member State — Prohibition on being a person authorised to accept service (domiciliataire) on behalf of companies — Requirement to produce each year the certificate of registration with the competent authority of the home Member State)

text:
               18.11.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/14

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-193/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Directive 98/5/EC - Practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained - Prior examination of knowledge of the languages of the host Member State - Prohibition on being a person authorised to accept service (domiciliataire) on behalf of companies - Requirement to produce each year the certificate of registration with the competent authority of the home Member State)
   (2006/C 281/22)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and A. Bordes, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: S. Schreiner, Agent, and L. Dupong, avocat,)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) — Language testing — Prohibition on being a person authorised to accept service on behalf of companies — Obligation to reproduce each year the certificate from the home Member State.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By making registration with the competent national authorities subject to a prior language test for lawyers who have obtained their qualification in a Member State other than the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and who wish to practise under their home-country professional title in the latter Member State, by prohibiting those lawyers from being persons authorised to accept service on behalf of companies, and by requiring them to produce each year a certificate of registration with the competent authority of their home Member State, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained.

               2.

               The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.


title: Case C-393/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien, Austria) — Ing. Aigner, Wasser-Wärme-Umwelt GmbH v Fernwärme Wien GmbH (Public contracts — Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC — Contracting entity pursuing activities falling in part within the field of application of Directive 2004/17/EC and in part within that of Directive 2004/18/EC — Body governed by public law — Contracting authority)

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien, Austria) — Ing. Aigner, Wasser-Wärme-Umwelt GmbH v Fernwärme Wien GmbH
   (Case C-393/06) (1)

   (Public contracts - Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC - Contracting entity pursuing activities falling in part within the field of application of Directive 2004/17/EC and in part within that of Directive 2004/18/EC - Body governed by public law - Contracting authority)
   (2008/C 128/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ing. Aigner, Wasser-Wärme-Umwelt GmbH

      Defendant: Fernwärme Wien GmbH
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vergabekontrollsenat des Landes Wien — Interpretation of Article 2(1) and of Article 3 of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 1) and interpretation of Article 1(9) 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) — Award of contract for heating equipment — The contracting authority is an undertaking controlled by the City of Vienna providing public services (district heating) — Body governed by public law — Assessment of the condition of competition — Application of European market award procedures also to activities carried out under competitive conditions (in the present case, air conditioning systems) — Contamination theory — No cross-subsidies
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A contracting entity, within the meaning of Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors is required to apply the procedure laid down in that directive only for the award of contracts which relate to activities carried out by that entity in one or more of the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 of that directive.

               2.

               An entity such as Fernwärme Wien GmbH is to be regarded as a body governed by public law within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 2004/17 and the second subparagraph of Article 1(9) 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.

               3.

               All contracts awarded by an entity which is a body governed by public law, within the meaning of Directive 2004/17 or Directive 2004/18, which relate to activities carried out by that entity in one or more of the sectors listed in Articles 3 to 7 of Directive 2004/17 must be subject to the procedures laid down in that directive. However, all other contracts awarded by such an entity in connection with the exercise of other activities are covered by the procedures laid down in Directive 2004/18. Each of these two directives applies without distinction between the activities carried out by that entity to accomplish its task of meeting needs in the general interest and activities which it carries out under competitive conditions, and even where there is an accounting system intended to make a clear internal separation between those activities in order to avoid cross financing between those sectors.

      (1)  OJ C 310, 16.12.2006.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 April 2005 in Case C-80/04 P DLD Trading Co. v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Non-contractual liability — Causal link between the conduct complained of and the alleged damage — No such link — Subject-matter of the dispute — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/23

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 12 April 2005
   in Case C-80/04 P DLD Trading Co. v Council of the European Union (1)

   (Appeal - Non-contractual liability - Causal link between the conduct complained of and the alleged damage - No such link - Subject-matter of the dispute - Manifest inadmissibility)
   (2005/C 217/45)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-80/04 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged on 18 February 2004 by DLD Trading Co., established in Brno (Czech Republic) (lawyers: J. Hintermayr, F. Haunschmidt, G. Minichmayr, P. Burgstaller and G. Tusek) the other parties to the proceedings being Council of the European Union (Agents: M.-C Giorgi Fort, A.-M. Colaert and J.-P. Hix) supported by Republic of Austria (Agents: C. Pesendorfer, W. Okresek and H. Dossi), by Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Schieferer) and by Republic of Finland (Agents: T. Pynnä and A. Guimaraes-Purokoski) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schingten (Rapporteur) and P. Kūris, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 12 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               DLD Trading Co. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.04.2004.


title: Case C-124/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Smit Reizen BV v Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulations (EEC) Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85 — Road transport — Obligation to record — Rest periods and other periods of work — Time spent in travelling to the place where a vehicle fitted with recording equipment is taken over — Meaning of ‘operating centre’ )

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/13

      Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 April 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Netherlands) — Smit Reizen BV v Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat
      (Case C-124/09) (1)

      (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulations (EEC) Nos 3820/85 and 3821/85 - Road transport - Obligation to record - Rest periods and other periods of work - Time spent in travelling to the place where a vehicle fitted with recording equipment is taken over - Meaning of ‘operating centre’)
      (2010/C 161/19)
      Language of the case: Dutch

         Referring court

      Raad van State

         Parties to the main proceedings

         Applicant: Smit Reizen BV

         Defendant: Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat

         Re:

      Reference for a preliminary ruling — Raad van State — Interpretation of Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 1) and of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on recording equipment in road transport (OJ 1985 L 370, p. 8) — Breaks from driving, daily rest periods and working time — Meaning — Obligation to record — Time spent in travelling to the place where the vehicle is taken over and which is at a distance from the operating centre of the undertaking — Operating centre — Meaning — Driver brought to the place by a third party

         Operative part of the judgment

                  1.

                  The term ‘operating centre’, in paragraph 21 et seq. of the judgment in Case C-297/99 Skills Motor Coaches and Others must be defined as the place to which the driver is actually attached, namely the transport undertaking facilities from which he usually carries out his service and to which he returns at the end of that service, in the normal exercise of his functions and without complying with specific instructions from his employer.

                  2.

                  Whether the driver concerned drives himself to the place where he must take over a vehicle fitted with recording equipment or whether he is driven to that place by someone else has no bearing on the classification of the travelling time in the light of the concept of ‘rest’ within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport.

         (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Case C-178/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 20 April 2015 — Alicja Sobczyszyn v Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie

text:
               27.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 245/4

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 20 April 2015 — Alicja Sobczyszyn v Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie
   (Case C-178/15)
   (2015/C 245/05)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy we Wrocławiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alicja Sobczyszyn

      Defendant: Szkoła Podstawowa w Rzeplinie

      Question referred

   Must Article 7 of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time (1), according to which Member States are to take the measures necessary to ensure that every worker is entitled to paid annual leave of at least four weeks in accordance with the conditions for entitlement to, and granting of, such leave laid down by national legislation and/or practice, be interpreted as meaning that a teacher who has taken convalescence leave as provided for in the Law of 26 January 1982 — Teachers’ Charter (Karta Nauczyciela) (Dz. U. 2014 headings 191 and 1198) also obtains a right to the annual leave provided for in the general provisions of labour law in the year in which he exercised the right to convalescence leave?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 299, p. 9.


title: Case T-72/10: Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Intermark Srl v OHIM

text:
               1.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/52

         Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Intermark Srl v OHIM
   (Case T-72/10)
   2010/C 113/83
   Language in which the application was lodged: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Intermark Srl (Stei, Romania) (represented by: Á.M. László, ügyvéd)

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

      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Natex International Trade SpA (Pioltello, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Amendment of the decision of the defendant and dismissal in its entirety of the application for registration with regard to all goods;

               —

               An order that the defendant bear the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Natex International Trade SpA

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘NATY’S’ for goods in classes 29, 30 and 32 (application for registration No 5 810 627)

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘Naty’ for goods and services in classes 30 and 35 (Community trade mark No 4 149 456)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the application

      Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-593/16: Order of the General Court of 7 February 2017 — Stips v Commission (Action for damages — Civil service — Temporary staff — No request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/37

         Order of the General Court of 7 February 2017 — Stips v Commission
   (Case T-593/16) (1)

   ((Action for damages - Civil service - Temporary staff - No request within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Manifest inadmissibility))
   (2017/C 112/51)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Adolf Stips (Besozzo, Italy) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant due to the delay in the organisation of the 2013 reclassification procedure.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               Adolf Stips shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F-23/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1 September 2016).


title: Case C-625/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Transport — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 91/440/EEC — Article 6(3) and Annex II — Directive 2001/14/EC — Article 14(2) — Lack of legal independence of the railway infrastructure manager — Article 11 — Absence of a performance scheme — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/2

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 April 2013 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-625/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Transport - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(3) and Annex II - Directive 2001/14/EC - Article 14(2) - Lack of legal independence of the railway infrastructure manager - Article 11 - Absence of a performance scheme - Incomplete transposition)
   2013/C 164/02
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, M. Perrot and S. Menez, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Article 6(3) of and Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 25) and Articles 6(2) to (5), 14(2) and 11 of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to ensure that the entity entrusted with the exercise of essential functions listed in Annex II to Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001, is independent of the undertaking which provides railway transport services, in accordance with Article 6(3) of that directive and Annex II thereto and Article 14(2) of Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification, as amended by Directive 2007/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007, and by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 11 of Directive 2001/14 within the prescribed time limit, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those provisions;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission and the French Republic to bear their own costs;

               4.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 103, 2.4.2011.


title: Case C-59/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 February 2017 — SCI Château du Grand Bois v Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/27

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 3 February 2017 — SCI Château du Grand Bois v Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)
   (Case C-59/17)
   (2017/C 112/37)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SCI Château du Grand Bois

      Defendant: Etablissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer (FranceAgriMer)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 76, 78 and 81 of [Commission] Implementing Regulation [No 555/2008] of 27 June 2008 (1) authorise officials carrying out an on-the-spot check to enter agricultural land without having obtained the farmer’s permission?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative: must a distinction be made depending on whether or not the land in question is enclosed?

               3.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative: are Articles 76, 78 and 81 of [Commission] Implementing Regulation [No 555/2008] of 27 June 2008 compatible with the principle of the inviolability of the home as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 555/2008 of 27 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine as regards support programmes, trade with third countries, production potential and on controls in the wine sector (OJ 2008 L 170, p. 1).


title: Case C-283/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2015 — X; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 11 June 2015 — X; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-283/15)
   (2015/C 294/38)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: X

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the provisions of the TFEU relating to free movement be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a European Union citizen who resides in Spain and whose work-related income is taxed in the amount of approximately 60 % by the Netherlands and approximately 40 % by Switzerland may not deduct his negative income incurred in respect of his property in Spain, which is for his personal use, from his work-related income which is taxed in the Netherlands, even if he receives such a low income in Spain, as his State of residence, that the abovementioned negative income in the year in question could not have led to tax relief in the State of residence?

               2.

                           a)

                           If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: must every Member State in which the European Union citizen earns part of his income then take into account the full amount of the abovementioned negative income? Or does that obligation apply to only one of the States concerned in which work is carried out, and if so, to which? Or must each of the States in which work is carried out (not being the State of residence) allow part of that negative income to be deducted? In the latter case, how is that deductible part to be determined?

                           b)

                           In this regard, is the Member State in which the work is actually performed the decisive factor, or is the decisive factor which Member State has the power to tax the income earned thereby?

               3.

               Would the answer to the two questions set out under (2) be different if one of the States in which the European Union citizen earns his income is Switzerland, which is not a Member State of the European Union and also does not belong to the European Economic Area?

               4.

               To what extent is it significant in this regard whether the legislation of the taxpayer’s country of residence (in this case, Spain) makes provision for the possibility of deducting mortgage interest relating to the taxpayer’s property and the possibility of offsetting the tax losses arising therefrom in the year in question against possible income earned in that country in later years?


title: Case C-279/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — European Commission v Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment — Incorrect transposition — Annexe II — Point 1(a) to (c) — Judgment of the Court of Justice — Finding of infringement — Article 260 TFEU — Pecuniary penalties — Lump sum payment — Member State’s ability to pay — Economic crisis — Assessment on the basis of current economic data)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 December 2012 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-279/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Incorrect transposition - Annexe II - Point 1(a) to (c) - Judgment of the Court of Justice - Finding of infringement - Article 260 TFEU - Pecuniary penalties - Lump sum payment - Member State’s ability to pay - Economic crisis - Assessment on the basis of current economic data)
   2013/C 46/08
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and K. Mifsud-Bonnici, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon and D. O’Hagan, acting as Agents, and E. Regan, SC, and de C. Toland, BL)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to comply with the judgment of the Court of 20 November 2008 in Case C-66/06 Commission v Ireland concerning the infringement of Article 2(1) and Article 4(2) to (4) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5) — Application for the imposition of a penalty payment and a lump sum.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of 20 November 2008 in Case C-66/06 Commission v Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU.

               2.

               Orders Ireland to pay to the Commission, into the account ‘European Union own resources’, a lump sum of EUR 1 500 000.

               3.

               Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Action brought on 31 May 1996 by Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen und Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-86/96)

text:
 No C 233 / 18          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  10 . 8 . 96
 On 22 April 1996 the Director decided, on the basis of a               by Dr Gerrit Schohe and Dr Philipp von Dietze,
 communication from Eurostat, to extend the applicant's                 Rechtsanwàlte, Hamburg, with an address for service in
 secondment to Eurostat until 31 May 1 996 . The applicant's            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Baden , 34b Rue
 application of 8 May 1996 for a prolongation of that                   Philippe II .
 extension until 30 September 1996 was refused by the
 Director, by letter of 21 May 1996 from Cedefop's head of             The applicants claim that the Court should :
 administration .
                                                                       — annul decision K(96 ) 841 final of the Commission of
 The applicant maintains that the contested decisions are                   13 March 1996 on special depreciation allowances for
 illegal , on the grounds set out below.                                    aircraft pursuant to paragraph 82 f of the German
                                                                            Einkommensteuerdurchfuhrungsverordnung ( income
 In particular :                                                            tax implementation regulation ), inasmuch as that
                                                                            decision concerns the extension of the validity of that
— the decisions were adopted in breach of essential
                                                                            provision from 1 January 1995 to 31 December
     procedural requirements . No adequate statement of
                                                                            1999 ,
     reasons for their adoption was provided,
— the contested decisions are illegal from a substantive               — order the Commission to pay the costs .
     standpoint, since they breach the general principles of
      Community law applicable to the public service . The             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     applicant complains in particular of the following
      breaches :                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
                                                                       in     Case T-25/96         Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher
     — breach of the agreements concluded between                      Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft
           Cedefop and the applicant and of the guarantees             mbH v . Commission .
           given by the former to the latter, and , consequently,
           infringement of his rights,
     — breach of the principle that the administration's acts
           are binding on itself, and of the principle of the
          protection of legitimate expectations, since                Action brought on 7 June 1996 by Gisèle Lienard against
           Cedefop's decisions contravened the guidelines laid                the Commission of the European Communities
          down with regard to its future conduct, and                                        ( Case T-88/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 233 /32 )
     — breach of the general duty of an employer to have
          regard for the welfare and interests of his employees,
          since the decisions failed to take account of the                           (Language of tbe case: Frencb)
          applicant's legitimate interests,
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
     — breach of the principle of equality of treatment,              Communities was brought before the Court of First
          since , unlike those persons who are remaining in           Instance of the European Communities on 7 June 1996 by
          Berlin, the applicant has not been given credit for his     Gisèle Lienard, residing at Woluwé-Saint-Etienne
          years of service .                                           ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
                                                                      Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , of the Brussels Bar, with an
For the same reasons, the decision to transfer the applicant's        address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
place of employment with Cedefop to Thessaloniki from                 Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener .
3 June 1996 was illegal .
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                      — annul the Commission's decision of 30 October 1995
                                                                           terminating with effect from 1 November 1995 the
                                                                           arrangement whereby the applicant was granted the
Action brought on 31 May 1996 by Arbeitsgemeinschaft
                                                                           additional tax abatement for dependent children .
deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen und Hapag-Lloyd
Fluggesellschaft mbH against the Commission of the                    — order the Commission to pay the costs .
                      European Communities
                          ( Case T-86/96 )                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                            ( 96/C 233/31 )
                                                                      The applicant, who is the ex-wife of a Commission official ,
                                                                      contests the Commission's decision granting her former
                 (Language of the case: German)                       husband the additional tax abatement provided for under
                                                                      the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( 4 ) of Council
An action against the Commission of the European                      Regulation ( EEC ) No 260/68 of 29 February 1968 laying
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     down the conditions and procedure for applying the tax for
Instance of the European Communities on 31 May 1996 by                the benefit of the European Communities .
the Arbeitsgemeinschaft deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen,
Bonn, and Hapag-Lloyd Fluggesellschaft mbH ,                          The applicant points out that on 2 1 November 1 994 she and
Langenhagen ( Federal Republic of Germany ), represented              her former husband signed pre-divorce agreements by


title: Case T-389/12: Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — EDF v Commission

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/18

         Order of the General Court of 22 January 2014 — EDF v Commission
   (Case T-389/12) (1)

   2014/C 78/37
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Case C-411/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 7 September 2007 — X B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden lodged on 7 September 2007 — X B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-411/07)
   (2007/C 283/28)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: X B.V.

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must an optical-electrical circuit contained in a plastic case which, together with a light emitting diode (‘LED’), a plastic film and a photodetector, contains an amplifying circuit and is intended for incorporation in, inter alia, communication and computer equipment, consumer electronics and industrial machines, be regarded as an electrical machine or apparatus within the meaning of heading 8543 of the CN?

               2.

               If it is a part of a machine, is ‘photosensitive semiconductor device, including photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled in modules or made up into panels’ referred to in heading 8541 of the CN to be interpreted as including an optical-electrical circuit as described above, or is such a product to be regarded as an electronic integrated circuit within the meaning of heading 8542 of the CN owing to the presence of the amplifying circuit?


title: Case C-480/15 P: Appeal brought on 10 September 2015 by KS Sports IPCo GmbH, successor in law to BH Stores BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 July 2015 in Case T-657/13: KS Sports v EUIPO

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/15

         Appeal brought on 10 September 2015 by KS Sports IPCo GmbH, successor in law to BH Stores BV against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 2 July 2015 in Case T-657/13: KS Sports v EUIPO
   (Case C-480/15 P)
   (2016/C 270/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: KS Sports IPCo GmbH, successor in law to BH Stores BV (represented by: T. Dolde, Rechtsanwalt, M. Hawkins, Solicitor, P. Homann, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   By order of 14 April 2016 the Court (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.