title: Case C-123/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam lodged on 21 March 2008 — Dominic Wolzenburg

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam lodged on 21 March 2008 — Dominic Wolzenburg
   (Case C-123/08)
   (2008/C 116/33)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Rechtbank Amsterdam
   Party to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dominic Wolzenburg
   Questions referred

               1.

               Should persons who are staying in or are residents of the executing Member State, as referred to in Article 4(6) of the Framework Decision (1), be taken to mean persons who do not have the nationality of the executing Member State, but do have the nationality of another Member State and are lawfully resident in the executing Member State pursuant to Article 18(1) EC, regardless of the duration of that lawful residence?

               2a.

               If the answer to question 1 is negative, should the terms referred to in that question be interpreted as meaning that they concern persons who do not have the nationality of the executing Member State, but do have the nationality of another Member State and, prior to their arrest under a European arrest warrant, have been lawfully resident in the executing Member State pursuant to Article 18(1) EC for at least a certain period?

               2b.

               If the answer to question 2a is affirmative, what requirements must lawful residence meet?

               3.

               If the answer to question 2a is affirmative, may the executing Member State lay down, in addition to a requirement concerning the duration of lawful residence, supplementary administrative requirements, such as possession of a permanent residence permit?

               4.

               Does a national measure specifying the conditions under which a European arrest warrant issued with a view to the enforcement of a custodial sentence is rejected by the judicial authority of the executing Member State come within the (material) scope of the EC Treaty?

               5.

               Given that:

                           —

                           Article 6(2) and (5) OLW (2) lays down rules affording persons who do not have Netherlands nationality, but are in possession of a permanent Netherlands residence permit, equal treatment with Netherlands nationals
                           and

                           —

                           those rules require refusal to surrender such classes of persons if the EAW concerns the enforcement of an irreversible custodial sentence,

                     does Article 6(2) and (5) OLW result in discrimination prohibited by Article 12 EC, in that the aforementioned equal treatment does not apply equally to nationals of other Member States with a right of residence under Article 18(1) EC who will not forfeit that right of residence as a result of the imposition on them of an irreversible custodial sentence, but who are not in possession of a permanent Netherlands residence permit?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).

      (2)  Overleveringswet (Staatsblad 2004, 195, as subsequently amended).


title: Case C-90/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 22 November 2001 in the case of Finanzamt Gummersbach against Gerhard Bockemühl

text:
C 169/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.7.2002
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                      1.   Is it possible to characterise as VAT, within the meaning
                                                                                of the provisions of the Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/
                         (Third Chamber)                                         EEC) (1), the amount mentioned on an invoice by a person
                                                                                who provides services to the State as a salaried employee,
                                                                                when the person providing those services mistakenly
                         of 30 April 2002                                        considers that he is providing services to the State as a
                                                                                self-employed person whilst, in reality, he is an employee
in Case C-181/01 P: N v Commission of the European                               and, on the recommendation of his employer, charges
                          Communities (1)                                        VAT on the invoices issued by him and not on his total
                                                                                earnings received from the State, which in law constitute
(Appeal — Officials — Social security — Article 73 of the                        the tax basis of assessment to VAT, subsequently collected
Staff Regulations — Definition of ‘accident’ — Refusal to                        from his earnings, but where the amount thereof is
            recognise HIV infection as an accident)                              determined on the earnings by means of an internal
                                                                                deduction method and the earnings are regarded as
                          (2002/C 169/24)                                        containing the amount of VAT owed, while the State
                                                                                reduces the amount of legitimate earnings paid to that
                                                                                person by the element of VAT they are calculated to
                    (Language of the case: French)                               contain?
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                           2.   Can there be a departure from the formal principle
                                                                                governing the tax as set out in Article 21(1)(c) of the
                                                                                Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) (that is to say, where
                                                                                VAT is mentioned on the invoice or other document
In Case C-181/01 P: N, an official of the Commission of                          serving as an invoice, such tax is payable to the State),
the European Communities, residing in Brussels (Belgium),                        where the State, in performing that activity in pursuance
represented by G. Durazzo, — appeal against the judgment of                      of its public authority, is under Article 4(5) of the above
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                       directive not subject to tax, so as to render the mechanism
Case T-2/00 N v Commission [2001] ECR-SC I-A-37 and II-                          of deductions inapplicable thereto, and the said tax
135, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party                    cannot be and is not passed on to the end consumer
to the proceedings being the Commission of the European                          (namely, the individual who contracts with the State for
Communities, (Agent: J. Currall): — the Court (Third Chamber),                   the translation of documents), the provider of services
composed of: F. Macken, President of the Chamber, C. Gul-                        being entitled to reimbursement of the tax paid to the tax
mann (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; Advocate                         authority after deduction of any input tax in order to
General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: R. Grass, has made an order                   avoid the State’s enrichment as a result thereof?
on 30 April 2002, in which:
1.    The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                            (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
2.    N is ordered to bear the costs.
(1) OJ C 200 of 14.7.2001.
                                                                            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Athens Appeal
                                                                            hof by order of that Court of 22 November 2001 in
Court by order of that Court of 31 January 2002 in the
                                                                            the case of Finanzamt Gummersbach against Gerhard
    case of the Greek State against Maria Karageorgou
                                                                                Bockemühl
                           (Case C-78/02)
                                                                                (Case C-90/02)
                          (2002/C 169/25)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Athens Appeal Court
(Greece) of 31 January 2002, received at the Court Registry on
11 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Greek State against Maria Karageorgou on the following                      European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
questions:                                                                  (Federal Finance Court) of 22 November 2001, received at the
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 169/15
Court Registry on 15 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling                 consideration of the procured goods and services to the
in the case of Finanzamt Gummersbach against Gerhard                      subsequently founded limited company and, from the outset,
Bockemühl on the following questions:                                     did not intend to carry out any other output transactions, and
                                                                          if, in the Member State concerned, a transfer of a totality of
                                                                          assets is not deemed to be a supply of goods or services (first
1.    Is it necessary under Article 18(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/         sentence of Article 5(8) and Article 6(5) of the Sixth Council
      EEC (1) for a person to whom services are supplied, who             Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
      is liable to pay tax under Article 21(1) of Directive 77/           of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      388/EEC and who has been charged to tax as such, to be              Common system of value added tax) (1)?
      in possession of an invoice issued in accordance with
      Article 22(3) of Directive 77/388/EEC in order to exercise
      his right to deduct input tax?                                      (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.
2.    If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, what
      details must the invoice contain? Is it detrimental if,
      instead of the supply of staff, the work carried out using
      that staff is given as the service supplied?
3.    What would be the consequences in law of inextinguish-              Appeal brought on 15 April 2002 by the Commission of
      able doubts that the person issuing the invoice supplied            the European Communities against the judgment deliver-
      the service invoiced?                                               ed on 30 January 2002 by the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended
                                                                          Composition) in Case T-54/99 max.mobil Telekommuni-
                                                                          kation Service GmbH v Commission of the European
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                          Communities, supported by the Kingdom of the Nether-
                                                                                lands
                                                                                (Case C-141/02 P)
                                                                                (2002/C 169/28)
                                                                          An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 January 2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
                                                                          by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
hof by order of that Court of 23 January 2002 in the case                 (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), in Case T-54/99
of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against Faxworld                      max.mobil Telekommunikation Service GmbH v Commission
Vorgründungsgesellschaft Peter Hünninghausen und
                                                                          of the European Communities(1), supported by the Kingdom
                       Wolfgang Klein GbR                                 of the Netherlands, was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities on 15 April 2002 by the
                          (Case C-137/02)                                 Commission of the European Communities, represented by
                                                                          Walter Mölls and Klaus Wiedner, of the Commission’s Legal
                                                                          Service, with an address for service at the office of Luis Escobar
                          (2002/C 169/27)                                 Guerrero, also of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre, C 254,
                                                                          Luxembourg.
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                      —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
(Federal Finance Court) of 23 January 2002, received at the                     the European Communities of 30 January 2002 in Case
Court Registry on 12 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in                    T-54/99 (max.mobil v Commission) in so far as it
the case of Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land against                            declares admissible the action for annulment brought by
Faxworld Vorgründungsgesellschaft Peter Hünninghausen und                       max.mobil against the Commission’s letter of 11 Decem-
Wolfgang Klein GbR on the following question:                                   ber 1998;
                                                                          —     dismiss as inadmissible the action for annulment brought
Is a partnership which has been established for the sole purpose                by max.mobil against the Commission’s letter of
of forming a company limited by shares (Aktiengesellschaft)                     11 December 1998;
entitled to deduct the value added tax paid on goods and
services procured by it, if, after that company has been                  —     order max.mobil to pay the costs of the proceedings
formed, that partnership effects by formal act a transfer for                   before the Court of Justice.


title: Case C-223/07: Action brought on 3 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               23.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 140/17

         Action brought on 3 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-223/07)
   (2007/C 140/27)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: N. Yerrell and P. Dejmek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on safety on the Community's railways and amending Council Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings and Directive 2001/14/EC on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (Railway Safety Directive) (1) and Directive 2004/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 amending Council Directive 96/48/EC on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system and Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system (2) or, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive

               —

               An order that the Kingdom of Sweden should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive expired on 30 April 2006.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 164, p. 44.

      (2)  OJ 2004 L 164, p. 114.


title: Case C-593/11 P: Order of the Court of 13 December 2012 — Alliance One International Inc. v European Commission (Appeal — Competition — Agreements, decisions or concerted practices — Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies — Presumption of innocence — Rights of defence — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/4

         Order of the Court of 13 December 2012 — Alliance One International Inc. v European Commission
   (Case C-593/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Competition - Agreements, decisions or concerted practices - Italian market for the purchase and first processing of raw tobacco - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Attributability of unlawful conduct of subsidiaries to their parent companies - Presumption of innocence - Rights of defence - Obligation to state reasons)
   2013/C 108/07
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Alliance One International Inc. (represented by: G. Mastrantonio, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 9 September 2011 in Case T-25/06 Alliance One International v Commission dismissing an action for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2006/901/EC of 20 October 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C.38.281/B.2 — Raw tobacco — Italy) (notified under document number C(2005) 4012) (OJ 2006 L 353, p. 45) concerning a cartel designed to fix prices paid to producers and other intermediaries and to share suppliers in the Italian raw tobacco market, and reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Alliance One International Inc. shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-146/07: Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/34

         Action brought on 13 March 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-146/07)
   (2007/C 95/65)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Simonsson and W. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/84/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 (1) on the resale right for the benefit of the author of an original work of art or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive, and

               —

               order Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit prescribed for implementing the Directive expired on 31 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 272, p. 32.


title: Case T-28/07: Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Fels-Werke GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/26

         Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Fels-Werke GmbH and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-28/07)
   (2007/C 69/55)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicants: Fels-Werke GmbH (Goslar, Germany), Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (Aachen Germany) and Spenner Zement GmbH & Co KG (Erwitte, Germany) (represented by: H. Posser and S. Altenschmidt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Article 1.2 of the Commission's Decision of 29 November 2006 on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Germany pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council (document number unpublished), insofar as it declares the allocation guarantees in respect of the first action period described in Chapter 6.2 of Germany's national allocation plan under the headings ‘Additional new installations under Paragraph 11 of the ZuG 2007 ’and ‘Allocations under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007 ’to be incompatible with Directive 2003/87/EC;

               —

               annul Article 2.2 of that decision insofar as it issues to the Federal Republic of Germany instructions for the application of the allocation guarantees in respect of the first action period described in Chapter 6.2 of Germany's national allocation plan under the headings ‘Additional new installations under Paragraph 11 of the ZuG 2007 ’and ‘Allocations under Paragraph 8 of the ZuG 2007 ’and in so doing also requires the application of the same performance factor as for other comparable existing installations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants challenge the Commission's decision of 29 November 2006 concerning the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances which Germany notified in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. In that decision the Commission objects to certain aspects of the national allocation plan for Germany on account of incompatibility with Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC (1).
   The applicants, operators of installations subject to compulsory emissions trading, claim to be directly and individually concerned by the contested decision.
   In support of their action that they put forward four pleas:
   First of all, they submit that on 29 November 2006 the defendant was no longer entitled to reject the German national allocation plan, as the mandatory time-limit for doing so in Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC had already expired.
   Moreover, on the merits, the applicants complain of an incorrect application of Article 9(3) in conjunction with the criteria of Annex III to Directive 2003/87/EC. In their view, the allocation guarantees criticised by the Commission for new installations are not State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. No unjustified preference was given to the installations in question.
   In addition the contested decision contains an inadequate statement of reasons and therefore infringes Article 253 EC.
   Finally, the contested decision infringes the Community principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, 2003, p. 32).


title: Case C-348/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 9 July 2010 — SIA Norma-A, SIA Dekom v Ludzas novada dome

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments (Republic of Latvia) lodged on 9 July 2010 — SIA Norma-A, SIA Dekom v Ludzas novada dome
   (Case C-348/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/54
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas Senāta Administratīvo lietu departaments

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: SIA Norma-A, SIA Dekom

      Defendant: Ludzas novada dome

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2004/17/EC (1) be interpreted as meaning that it is necessary to treat as a public service concession a contract under which the successful tenderer is granted the right to provide public bus services, in cases where part of the consideration consists in the right to operate the public transport services but where, at the same time, the contracting authority compensates the service provider for losses arising as a result of the provision of services, and in addition the public law provisions governing the provision of the service and the contractual provisions limit the risk associated with operation of the service?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the negative, has Article 2f(1)(b) of Directive 92/13/EEC, as amended by Directive 2007/66/EC, (2) been directly applicable in Latvia since 21 December 2009?

               3.

               If the second question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 2f(1)(b) of Directive 92/13/EEC be interpreted as being applicable to public contracts entered into before the end of the period prescribed for domestic law to be brought into conformity with Directive 2007/66/EC?

      (1)  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).

      (2)  Directive 2007/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 amending Council Directives 89/665/EEC and 92/13/EEC with regard to improving the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ 2007 L 335, p. 31).


title: Case C-670/13 P: Appeal brought on 13 December 2013 by The Cartoon Network, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2013 in Case T-285/12: The Cartoon Network, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/29

         Appeal brought on 13 December 2013 by The Cartoon Network, Inc. against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 2 October 2013 in Case T-285/12: The Cartoon Network, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-670/13 P)
   2014/C 52/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: The Cartoon Network, Inc. (represented by: I. Starr, Solicitor)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Boomerang TV, SA

      Form of order sought

   The appellant seeks an order that:

               —

               The judgment under appeal be set aside by the Court of Justice and that the contested decision be annulled; or in the alternative,

               —

               That the judgment under appeal be set aside by the Court of Justice and referred back to the General Court; and that

               —

               The defendant pays to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  Infringement of Article 36 and 53 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the ‘Statute’)

               Articles 36 and 53 of the Statute state that the General Court has a duty to set out the reasons on which its judgments are based. In the Judgment under Appeal the General Court erred in law by failing to provide reasons for its conclusion that the relevant public consisted solely of professionals.

               2.

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009/EC
                   (1): Distortion of the Facts: Relevant Public

                           2.1.

                           The General Court erred in law in concluding that the relevant public consisted solely of professionals and was the same relevant public for the relevant services of the Intervener's CTM and the CTM Application, as this conclusion is based on a distortion of the facts before the General Court. The General Court and the Board should have limited their analysis to the specification of the CTM Application; or in the alternative

                           2.2.

                           If the General Court was correct to conclude that the relevant public for both the CTM Application and the Intervener's CTM was composed solely of professionals, the General Court ought to have considered that there was no likelihood of confusion between the CTM Application and Intervener's CTM, as a result of the higher degree of attention paid by the relevant professionals.

               3.

                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009/EC: Distortion of the Facts: Similarity of Services and Infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation 207/2009/EC

               The General Court erred in law in concluding that the services covered by the CTM Application are similar to the services protected by the Intervener's CTM, bearing in mind inter alia their respective nature, intended purpose, end users and relevant public. Furthermore, the General Court and the Board erred in law in relying on facts on their own initiative.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark

      OJ L 78, 24.3.2009, p. 1


title: Case T-274/02: Action brought on 6 September 2002 by Ritek Corporation and Prodisc Technology Inc. against the Council of the European Union

text:
23.11.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 289/27
The applicant furthermore invokes a violation of its right to a             —     order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceed-
fair trial. According to the applicant, there was no fair and                     ings be borne by the defendant.
independent hearing in the matter. The applicant also invokes
a violation of the right of access to documents. In addition, the
Commission violated the principle of good administration by
not dealing with the matter within a reasonable time limit.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission has misused
its powers by implementing Article 24 of Regulation (EEC)
4253/88 (1). According to the applicant, Article 24 should
only be used in the event of impropriety. In the present case,
the Commission should have applied Article 23 of the                        The applicants are producers of CD-Rs established in Taiwan
regulation to recover the money overpaid as a result of                     and export CD-Rs to the Community. In February 2001, an
mistakes.                                                                   anti-dumping complaint was lodged before the Commission
                                                                            by the Committee of European CD-R Manufacturers. Following
                                                                            this complaint, the Commission initiated an investigation
( 1) Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988, laying down           regarding imports originating in Taiwan. Provisional anti-
     provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as             dumping measures were imposed by Commission Regulation
     regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural     2479/2001 (1). These measures were made definitive by
     Funds between themselves and with the operations of the                Council Regulation 1050/2002 (2). The applicants contest the
     European Investment Bank and the other existing financial              latter regulation with their present action.
     instruments (OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1).
                                                                            The applicants allege infringement of Articles 2(10) and 2(11)
                                                                            of Regulation 384/96 on protection against dumped imports
                                                                            from countries not members of the European Community (3).
                                                                            According to the applicants, the Council committed a manifest
                                                                            error in the assessment of the facts and of law by finding that
                                                                            the applicants engaged in ‘targeted dumping’ practices and
Action brought on 6 September 2002 by Ritek Corpor-                         allowed use of the average-to-transaction methodology in the
ation and Prodisc Technology Inc. against the Council of                    calculation of the dumping margin of the applicants.
                       the European Union
                          (Case T-274/02)
                                                                            According to the applicants, no exceptional treatment of
                                                                            certain transactions to certain customers, in certain regions or
                         (2002/C 289/51)                                    in certain time periods, i.e. no targeted dumping, took place
                                                                            during the investigation period. The applicants submit that
                                                                            export and domestic price patterns were almost identical and
                    (Language of the case: English)                         that the prices for CD-Rs declined worldwide. In these
                                                                            circumstances, there was, according to the applicants, no
                                                                            place for disguising the effects of dumping through targeted
                                                                            dumping.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 6 September 2002 by Ritek Corporation,
Hsin Chu Industrial Park, Taiwan R.O.C. and Prodisc Tech-                   The applicants furthermore claim that by using the average-to-
nology Inc., Taipei Hsien, Taiwan R.O.C, represented by Dr                  transaction methodology which refers to constructed normal
Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, Barrister, with an address for                 values, the Commission failed to address the purpose of
service in Luxembourg.                                                      targeted dumping, which is to conceal dumping by charging
                                                                            different export prices. According to the applicants, the
                                                                            Commission should refer to actual prices when investigating
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 targeted dumping.
—      declare, pursuant to Article 230 and 231 of the Treaty,
       that Council Regulation (EC) 1050/2002 of 13 June 2002
       imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting               Secondly, the applicants allege infringement of Article 2 of
       definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of              Regulation 384/96. The applicant claims that the Council
       recordable compact disks originating in Taiwan is null ad            made a manifest error of assessment of the facts in calculating
       void;                                                                the dumping margin of the applicants by using the ‘zeroing
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/28                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.11.2002
technique’. Using this technique, the transactions of the                   Pleas in law and main arguments
applicants that are made at a price higher then the average
price, are brought down to a price equal to the average price.
According to the applicants, the Commission did not apply                   The applicant is an association bringing together more than
the average-to-transaction methodology correctly as a result                230 multinational companies, who together have invested
of using the ‘zeroing technique’. The applicants submit that                hundreds of millions of euros in the establishment of coordi-
the objective of the average-to-transaction methodology is to               nation centres in Belgium, based on legislation dating from the
ensure a fair comparison and not to yield higher dumping                    early 1980s permitting the establishment of coordination
margins.                                                                    centres for multinational companies. It explains that this
                                                                            legislation was found by the Commission on two separate
                                                                            occasions in 1984 and 1987 to fall outside Community rules
                                                                            on state aids and that, encouraged by these findings, the
( 1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2479/2001 of 17 December
                                                                            coordination centres invested in Belgium and have, over the
     2001 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
     recordable compact disks originating in Taiwan (OJ L 334, p. 8).
                                                                            last 15 years, significantly expanded their presence there.
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1050/2002 of 13 June 2002 imposing
     a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the
     provisional duty imposed on imports of recordable compact disks        The applicant states that the Commission’s decision to initiate
     originating in Taiwan (OJ L 160, p. 2).                                the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in respect of this
( 3) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on               Belgian legislation (the contested decision) abruptly, arbitrarily
     protection against dumped imports from countries not members           and without any adequate reasoning re-classifies it as an aid
     of the European Community (OJ 1996, L 56, p. 1).                       within the meaning of Article 87(1) and reaches preliminary
                                                                            negative conclusions as to its compatibility with the common
                                                                            market, thereby ‘at a stroke’ removing legal certainty and
                                                                            infringing the legitimate expectations of the Belgian Coordi-
                                                                            nation Centres.
                                                                            The applicant submits that the Commission’s decision is
                                                                            unlawful, being in breach of Article 1(b)(v) of Regulation 659/
                                                                            1999, and has no other basis in Community law. The
                                                                            Commission’s alternative legal basis for its decision to the
Action brought on 12 September 2002 by Forum 187 asbl                       effect that it is entitled to reverse a decision taken 15 years
   against the Commission of the European Communities                       earlier (either under Article 1(b)(v) or under general adminis-
                                                                            trative principles) is likewise unfounded in Community law
                                                                            and should be annulled. In particular, this alternative legal
                          (Case T-276/02)                                   basis for the Commission decision infringes the principles of
                                                                            legal certainty and legitimate expectations. The applicant
                                                                            considers therefore that, especially taking into account the
                          (2002/C 289/52)                                   novel legal basis upon which the decision purports to be taken
                                                                            and the substantial economic interests involved, the decision
                                                                            is inadequately reasoned, in breach of Article 253, and should
                     (Language of the case: English)                        be annulled.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 September 2002 by Forum 187
asbl, Brussels, Belgium, represented by Mr Alastair Sutton,                 Action brought on 10 September 2002 by Dyson Limited
barrister and Mr James Killick, barrister.                                  against the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                                Market
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                          (Case T-278/02)
—      Annul the Commission’s Notice of its decision to initiate                                     (2002/C 289/53)
       the procedure laid down in Article 88 (2) of the EC Treaty
       published in the OJ C 147, p. 2 on 20 June 2002.                                        (Language of the case: English)
—      Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            An action against the Office for the Harmonisation in the
—      Take such other or further steps as justice may require.             Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance


               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/30

         Removal from the register of Case C-57/04 (1)

   (2005/C 143/51)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 10 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-57/04 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.


title: Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-239/95)

text:
2 . 9 . 95             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 229/ 15
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event by                The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
     failing to communicate, the laws, regulations and                 in Case C-234/95 ( 2 ); the period prescribed for
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                implementation of the Directive expired on 1 July 1992 .
     Commission Directive 93/67/EEC (*) of 20 July 1993
     laying down the principles for assessment of risks to man         (') OJ No L 189 , 20 . 7. 1990 , p. 17 .
     and    the   environment      of   substances   notified  in      ( 2 ) See page 13 of this Official Journal .
     accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC, the
     Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     that Directive and under the EC Treaty,
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel de
                                                                       Metz, by judgment of that court of 3 1 May 1 995 , in criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Remy Schmit, the civil parties claiming
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    damages being Robert Vergobbio and Salvatore La
                                                                                Mancusa
Article 1 8 9 of the EC Treaty, which provides that a directive
                                                                                Case C-240/95 )
is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the
Member State to which it is addressed, means that Member                                           95/C 229/32 )
States are under an obligation to comply with the time limits
laid down in those directives for their transposition. On the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
expiry of the relevant prescribed period on 31 October                 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel
1993 , the Italian Republic had not adopted the provisions             Metz ( Court of Appeal ), Metz, of 31 May 1995 , which was
necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the             received at the Court Registry on 7 July 1995 , for a
form of order sought by the Commission .                               preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings against Remy
                                                                       Schmit, the civil parties claiming damages being Robert
(') OJ No L 227, 8 . 9 . 1993 , p . 9 .                                Vergobbio and Salvatore La Mancusa, on the following
                                                                       question :
                                                                       Does Article 30 of the EEC Treaty preclude national
                                                                        legislation concerning model-year dates for motor vehicles,
                                                                       which causes the administrative authorities and traders of a
                                                                        Member State to consider that, in the case of two motor
Action brought on 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the                 vehicles of the same model and make, placed on the market
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium                    on the same date after 1 July , one vehicle may be held out as
                         ( Case C-239/95 )
                                                                        falling under the model-year date of the following calendar
                                                                        year whereas the other, manufactured in another Member
                            95/C 229/31 )                               State and the subject of parallel importation, may not ?
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 6 July 1995 by the Commission of the European
 Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in               Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                   20 June 1995 , in the case of The Queen against the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                               Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex-parte:
                                                                                Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and others
 The Commission claims that the Court should :                                                    Case C-241 /95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/33 )
 1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
       administrative measures needed to comply with Council            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       Directive 90/385/EEC of 20 June 1990 ( 1 ) on the                 European Communities by an order of the High Court of
       approximation of the laws of the Member States relating          Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 20 June 1995 , which
       to active implantable medical devices, the Kingdom of             was received at the Court Registry on 10 July 1995 , for a
       Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that           preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the
       Directive, in particular Article 16 ;                             Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, ex-parte :
                                                                         Accrington Beef Co. Ltd and others, on the following
 2 . in the alternative, declare that, in any event, by failing to       questions :
       inform the Commission of such measures forthwith, the
       Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations           1 . Is Article 1 ( 2 ) of Commission Regulation ( EC )
       under those provisions;                                                No 214/94 of 31 January 1994 laying down detailed
                                                                              rules for the application of the Council Regulation ( EC )
 3 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                          No 130/94 with regard to the import arrangements for


title: Case T-347/13: Action brought on 1 July 2013 — Hawe Hydraulik v OHIM — HaWi Energietechnik (HAWI)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/37

         Action brought on 1 July 2013 — Hawe Hydraulik v OHIM — HaWi Energietechnik (HAWI)
   (Case T-347/13)
   2013/C 252/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Hawe Hydraulik SE (Munich, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: HaWi Energietechnik AG (Eggenfelden, Germany)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 April 2013 in Case R 1690/2012-4 relating to Community trade mark application No 6 558 589‘HAWI’;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: HaWi Energietechnik AG

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HAWI’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 35, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6 558 589

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark including the word element ‘HAWE’ for goods in Classes 7 and 9

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 42(2) in conjunction with Article 78(1)(f) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the erroneous assessment of the evidence constituted by the declaration on oath;

               —

               Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the erroneous assessment of the evidence constituted by the extracts from the Internet;

               —

               Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the assessment of the proof of use in its entirety;

               —

               Infringement of the right to be heard regarding the failure to take the proof of use into account;

               —

               Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-262/06 P: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — Commission v D (Appeal — Civil service — Officials — Annulment at first instance of the Commission's decision — Occupational disease — Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of the disease or of the worsening of the disease from which the applicant is suffering — Admissibility of the appeal — Admissibility of the plea in law examined at first instance — Force of res judicata )

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/47

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 2008 — Commission v D
   (Case T-262/06 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Annulment at first instance of the Commission's decision - Occupational disease - Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of the disease or of the worsening of the disease from which the applicant is suffering - Admissibility of the appeal - Admissibility of the plea in law examined at first instance - Force of res judicata)
   (2008/C 209/82)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: D (represented by: J. Van Rossum, S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis, A. Coolen and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Axa Belgium (represented initially by C. Goossens, P. Meessen and S. Wilmet, then by C. Goossens and P. Meessen, lawyers)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) in Case F-18/05 D v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-18/05 D v Commission;

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 2.12.2006.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of  6 October 2005  in Case C-328/04: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság in the criminal proceedings against Attila Vajnai (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination — National provision prohibiting, on pain of criminal prosecution, the use in public of a symbol consisting of a five-point red star — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/5

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 6 October 2005
   in Case C-328/04: reference for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Bíróság in the criminal proceedings against Attila Vajnai (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination - National provision prohibiting, on pain of criminal prosecution, the use in public of a symbol consisting of a five-point red star - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
   (2006/C 10/10)
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   In Case C-328/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary), made by decision of 24 June 2004, received at the Court on 28 July 2004, in the criminal proceedings against Attila Vajnai — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur) and E. Juhász, Judges; C. Stix Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 6 October 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Fővárosi Bíróság (Hungary) by decision of 24 June 2004.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case T-247/10: Action brought on 28 May 2010 — medi v OHIM — Deutsche Medi Präventions (deutschemedi.de)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/48

         Action brought on 28 May 2010 — medi v OHIM — Deutsche Medi Präventions (deutschemedi.de)
   (Case T-247/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/72
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: medi GmbH & Co KG (Bayreuth, Germany) (represented by: D. Terheggen, H. Lindner and T. Kiputh, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Deutsche Medi Präventions GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany)

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 March 2010 in Case R 1366/2008-4;

               —

               reject the application for Community trade mark EM 5 089 099 in its entirety;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Deutsche Medi Präventions GmbH.

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘deutschemedi.de’ for services in Class 35.

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

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘medi.eu’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 10, 35, 39, 41, 42 and 44; German word mark ‘medi welt’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 10, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44; German word mark ‘medi-Verband’ for goods and services in Classes 5, 10, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44; Community word mark ‘World of medi’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 10, 35, 41 and 42; German figurative mark, containing the word elements ‘medi Ich fühl mich besser’, for goods and services in Classes 5, 10, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 44; a trade and commercial name in commercial use containing the word element ‘medi’ for all goods and services to which the abovementioned marks relate in the territory of the European Union.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed and opposition rejected.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) because there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue and the applicant has proved that it owns the commercial rights including the right to a commercial name, and infringement of the right to a hearing under Article 73 of Regulation No 207/2009.

      (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-12/08 P: Appeal brought on 4 January 2008 by M against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 October 2007 in Case F-23/07, M v EMEA

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/59

         Appeal brought on 4 January 2008 by M against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 19 October 2007 in Case F-23/07, M v EMEA
   (Case T-12/08 P)
   (2008/C 64/95)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: M (Broxbourne, United Kingdom) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 October 2007 in M v European Medicines Agency in Case F-23/07;

               —

               annul the decision of the EMEA of 25 October 2006 in so far as it dismisses the request of 8 August to consult the Invalidity Committee;

               —

               annul the decision of the EMEA dismissing the request for compensation;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In his appeal, the appellant asks the Court to set aside the order of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing, on the ground that it is inadmissible, the action for annulment of the decision of 25 October 2006 by which the European Medicines Agency dismissed his request to set up and Invalidity Committee.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant puts forward a single plea alleging infringement of Community law. He claims that the Civil Service Tribunal has committed an error of interpretation with respect to the scope of his action at first instance and, therefore, it gave a ruling ultra petita. He also claims that the Civil Service Tribunal infringed Article 33(1) and (2) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the Communities.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 9 July 1997 in Case C-222/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made by the French Cour de Cassation): Société Civile Immobilière Parodi v. Banque H. Albert de Bary et Cie (Free movement of capital - Freedom to provide services - Credit institutions - Grant of a mortgage loan - Authorization requirement in the Member State in which the service is provided)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 252/ 13
2 . On a proper construction of Article 30 of the EC                   preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
     Treaty, a Member State is not precluded from taking,              court between Societe Civile Immobiliere Parodi and
     on the basis of provisions of its domestic legislation,           Banque H. Albert de Bary et Cie — on the interpretation
     measures against an advertiser in relation to television          of Articles 59 and 61 (2 ) of the EEC Treaty — the Court,
     advertising, provided that those provisions affect in             composed of: G. F. Mancini, President of the Second and
     the same way, in law and in fact, the marketing of                Sixth Chambers, acting for the President, J. C. Moitinho
     domestic products and of those from other Member                  de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L. Sevon ( Presidents of
     States, are necessary for meeting overriding                      Chambers ), C. N. Kakouris, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.
     requirements of general public importance or one of               Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm
     the aims laid down in Article 36 of the EC Treaty, are            ( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges; M. B. Elmer,
     proportionate for that purpose, and those aims or                 Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
     overriding requirements could not be met by measures              the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 July 1997, the
     less restrictive of intra-Community trade.                        operative part of which is as follows :
3 . On a proper construction of Article 59 of the EC                    With regard to the period preceding the entry into force of
      Treaty, a Member State is not precluded from taking,             Second Council Directive 89/646/EEC of 15 December
     on the basis of provisions of its domestic legislation,           1989 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
     measures against an advertiser in relation to television          administrative provisions relating to the taking up and
     advertising. However, it is for the national court to             pursuit of the business of credit institutions and amending
     determine whether those provisions are necessary for              Directive 77/780/EEC, Article 59 of the EEC Treaty must
     meeting overriding requirements of general public                 be construed as precluding a Member State from requiring
     importance or one of the aims stated in Article 56 of             a credit institution already authorized in another Member
                                                                       State to obtain an authorization in order to be able to
     the EC Treaty, whether they are proportionate for that
     purpose and whether those aims or overriding                      grant a mortgage loan to a person resident within its
     requirements could be met by measures less restrictive            territory, unless that authorization:
     of intra-Community trade.
                                                                       — is required of every person or company pursuing such
                                                                            an activity within the territory of the Member State of
4 . Directive 89/552/EEC is to be interpreted as                            destination,
     precluding the application to television broadcasts
     from other Member States of a provision of a domestic             — is justified on grounds of public interest, such as
      broadcasting law which provides that advertisements                   consumer protection, and
      broadcast in commercial breaks on television must not
      be designed to attract the attention of children under
      12 years of age.                                                 — is objectively necessary to ensure compliance with the
                                                                            rules applicable in the sector under consideration and
                                                                            to protect the interests which those rules are intended
H OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .                                             to safeguard, and the same result cannot be achieved
                                                                            by less restrictive rules.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 208 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 9 July 1997
in Case C-222/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling made                                 ORDER OF THE COURT
by the French Cour de Cassation ): Société Civile                                                of 30 June 1997
 Immobilière Parodi v. Banque H. Albert de Bary et Cie (')
                                                                       in Case C-66/97 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Free movement of capital — Freedom to provide services                the Tribunal Cível da Comarca de Lisboa): Banco de
— Credit institutions — Grant of a mortgage loan —                     Fomento e Exterior SA v. Amândio Maurício Martins
Authorization requirement in the Member State in which                 Pechim, Maria da Luz Lima Barros Raposo Pechim and
                      the service is provided)                                  Confecções Têxteis de Vouzela Ld? ( CTV) (')
                           ( 97/C 252/24 )                                   (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissible)
                                                                                ( 97/C 252/25 )
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)                               published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-222/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177             In Case C- 66/97: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty by the French Cour de Cassation for a                  of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Civel da Comarca de


title: Case T-535/16: Order of the General Court of 5 December 2016 — McGillivray v Commission

text:
               6.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/55

         Order of the General Court of 5 December 2016 — McGillivray v Commission
   (Case T-535/16) (1)

   (2017/C 038/72)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Eight Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015 (case initially registered before the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union under number F 12/15 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).


title: Case C-253/13: Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 21 October 2013 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-253/13) (1)

   2014/C 102/46
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


Composition of the EFTA Court


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 October 1996 in Case T-56/94: Raffaele de Santis v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Vacancy notice - Abuse of process)

text:
No C 354/24            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 23 . 11 . 96
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for annulment of the
                      of 16 October 1996                             decision of the Commission of 16 December 1993 regarding
in Case T-37/94 : Dimitrios Benecos v. Commission of the
                                                                     the publication of a vacancy notice for the post ( ref:
                                                                     COM/ 144/93 ) of Head of Unit 1 ( Milk products ) of
                  European Communities ( 1 )                         Directorate D ( Organization of markets in livestock
 (Officials — Reinstatement — Determination of the level of          products ) of Directorate-General VI ( Agriculture ) — the
        a post — Act adversely affecting an official)                Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of: K.
                          ( 96/C 354/46 )                            Lenaerts, President, and P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J.
                                                                     Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
                                                                     given a judgment on 16 October 1996 , in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     1 . dismisses the action;
In Case T-37/94 : Dimitrios Benecos, an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in
Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Veronique                  2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs, including
Leclercq, Gréta-Françoise Parmentier and Ariane Tornel , of              those relating to the proceedings for interim
                                                                         measures .
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent : Ana                 (') OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for annulment of the
decision of the Commission classifying as a grade A 5 post
the position ( ref. COM/022/93 ) of Head of Unit 4
( Technical group on infrastructure ) of Directorate E ( East
and    Southern     Africa )     of Directorate-General    VIII
( Development ) and for annulment of all subsequent
decisions, in particular the decision rejecting the applicant's       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
application for the post, as well as the decision appointing                               of 16 October 1996
Mr G. to that post — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth
Chamber ), composed of: K. Lenaerts, President, and P.               in Case T-336/94 : Efisol SA v. Commission of the European
Lindh and J. D. Cooke , Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,                                          Communities ( ! )
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            (Regulation (EEC) No 594/91 on substances that deplete
16 October 1996 , in which it:                                       the ozone layer — Allocation ofquotas — Import licences —
                                                                     Refusal to grant — Application for compensation —
                                                                                Protection of legitimate expectations)
1 . dismisses the application;
                                                                                96/C 354/48 )
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(>) OJ No C 76 , 12 . 3 . 1994 .
                                                                     In Case T-336/94 : Efisol SA, having its registered office in
                                                                     Paris, represented by Jacques Buhart, of the Paris Bar, and
                                                                    Jean-Yves Art, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                                                                     service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt et
                                                                     Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of
                                                                     the European Communities ( Agent: Marc H. van der
                                                                    Woude ) — application under Article 178 and the second
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty seeking
                      of 16 October 1996                             compensation for the damage occasioned by the refusal to
in Case T-56/94 : Raffaele de Santis v. Commission of the            grant licences to import chlorofluorocarbon 11 into the
                  European Communities ( 1 )                         Community — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber,
                                                                     Extended Composition ), composed of: A. Saggio, President,
     (Officials — Vacancy notice — Abuse of process)                 C. W. Bellamy, A. Kalogeropoulos, V. Tiili and R. M.
                          ( 96/C 354/47 )                            Moura Ramos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
                                                                     judgment on 16 October 1996 , in which it:
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     1 . dismisses the application;
In Case T-56/94 : Raffaele de Santis , an official of the
Commission of the European Communities, residing in                  2 . orders the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.
Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Veronique
Leclercq, Gréta-Françoise Parmentier and Ariane Tornel, of           (') OJ No C 380 , 31 . 12 . 1994 .
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:


title: Case C-300/07: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hans & Christophorus Oymanns GbR, Orthopädie Schuhtechnik v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg (Directive 2004/18/EC — Public supply contracts and public service contracts — Statutory sickness insurance funds — Bodies governed by public law — Contracting authorities — Invitation to tender — Manufacture and supply of orthopaedic footwear individually tailored to patients’ needs — Detailed advice provided to patients)

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 June 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Hans & Christophorus Oymanns GbR, Orthopädie Schuhtechnik v AOK Rheinland/Hamburg
   (Case C-300/07) (1)

   (Directive 2004/18/EC - Public supply contracts and public service contracts - Statutory sickness insurance funds - Bodies governed by public law - Contracting authorities - Invitation to tender - Manufacture and supply of orthopaedic footwear individually tailored to patients’ needs - Detailed advice provided to patients)
   2009/C 180/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hans & Christophorus Oymanns GbR, Orthopädie Schuhtechnik

      Defendant: AOK Rheinland/Hamburg

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(c) and (d), (4), (5), and (9), second subparagraph, (c), 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) — Call for tenders by a sickness insurance fund within a statutory insurance scheme relating to the supply of orthopaedic shoes for insured persons — Meaning of ‘body governed by public law’ — Services comprising the supply of shoes manufactured according to the individual requirements of each insured person together with detailed consultation concerning the use of the product — Whether classified as ‘public supply contracts’ or ‘public services contracts’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The first alternative of letter (c) of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that there is financing, for the most part, by the State when the activities of statutory sickness insurance funds are chiefly financed by contributions payable by members, which are imposed, calculated and collected according to rules of public law such as those in the main proceedings. Such sickness insurance funds are to be regarded as bodies governed by public law and therefore as contracting authorities for the purposes of the application the rules in that directive.

               2.

               When a mixed public contract concerns both products and services, the criterion to be applied in order to determine whether the contract in question is a supply contract or a service contract is the respective value of the products and services covered by the contract. Where the products supplied are individually manufactured and tailored to the needs of each customer and where each customer must receive individual advice on the use of the products, the manufacture of those products must be classified in the ‘supply’ part of the said contract for the purposes of calculating the value of each part thereof.

               3.

               If the provision of services is regarded as being more important than the supply of products in the contract in question, an agreement such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, concluded between a statutory sickness insurance fund and a trader, in which payment for the various types of service to be provided by the trader and the duration of the agreement are determined, with the trader undertaking an obligation to implement the agreement in regard to insured persons who ask him to do so and the abovementioned fund alone paying that trader for its services, must be regarded as a framework agreement within the meaning of Article 1(5) of Directive 2004/18.

      (1)  OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de Cassation by judgment of that court of 8 October 1996 in the case of Drouot Assurances SA against Consolidated Metallurgical Industries (CMI Industrial Sites), GIE Réunion Européenne and Protea Assurance (Case C-351/96)

text:
7 . 12 . 96               I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                            No C 370/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords,                         the exemption for 'insurance [...] transactions ' to
by order of that court of 15 October 1996, in the case of                         supplies made by persons permitted to carry on
Card Protection Plan Ltd against Commissioners of                                 insurance business under the law of that Member State ?
                            Customs and Excise
                              Case C-349/96 )                              (') Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                                harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                               ( 96/C 370/20 )                                   turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax :
                                                                                uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p. 1 ).
                                                                           ( 2 ) Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the
                                                                                coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
                                                                                relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of direct
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                           insurance other than life assurance ( OJ No L 228 , 16 . 8 . 1973 ,
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords                           p. 3 ).
of 15 October 1996, which was received at the Court                        ( 3 ) Council Directive 84/641 /EEC of 10 December 1984 amending,
Registry on 21 October 1996, for a preliminary ruling in                         particularly as regards tourist assistance, the first Directive ( 73/
the case of Card Protection Plan Ltd against Commissioners                       239/EEC ) on the coordination of laws , regulations and
of Customs and Excise, on the following questions:                               administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit
                                                                                of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance ( OJ
                                                                                No L 339, 27. 12 . 1984, p. 21 ).
                                                                           ( 4 ) Council Directive 77/92/EEC of 13 December 1976 on
                                                                                measures to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom of
1 . Having regard to the provisions of the sixth VAT                             establishment and freedom to provide services in respect of the
     Directive (*) and in particular to Article 2 ( 1 ) thereof,                 activities of insurance agents and brokers (ex ISIC Group 630 )
     what is the proper test to be applied in deciding                           and, in particular, transitional measures in respect of those
     whether a transaction consists for VAT purposes of a                        activities ( OJ No L 26 , 31 . 1 . 1977, p. 14 ).
     single composite supply or of two or more independent
     supplies ?
2 . Does the supply by an undertaking of a service or
     services of the kind provided by Card Protection Plan                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Cour de
     Limited ( CPP ) through the card protection plan                      Cassation by judgment of that court of 8 October 1996 in
     operated by them constitute for VAT purposes a single                 the case of Drouot Assurances SA against Consolidated
     composite supply or two or more independent supplies ?                Metallurgical Industries ( CMI Industrial Sites ), GIE
     Are there any particular features of the present case,                              Reunion Europeenne and Protea Assurance
     such as the payment of a single price by the customer or                                           Case C-351 /96 )
     the involvement of Continental Assurance Company of
     London pic as well as CPP, that affect the answer to                                                 ( 96/C 370/21 )
     that question ?
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
3 . Do such supply or supplies constitute or include
                                                                         ' European Communities by judgment of the French Cour ,de
     ' insurance [...] transactions including related services
                                                                           Cassation ( Court of Cassation ) of 8 October 1996 , received
     performed by insurance [...] agents' within the meaning
     of Article 13 ( B ) ( a ) of the sixth VAT Directive ? In
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 25 October 1996 , for a
                                                                           preliminary ruling in the case of Drouot Assurances SA
     particular, for the purpose of answering that question :
                                                                           against Consolidated Metallurgical Industries ( CMI
                                                                           Industrial Sites ), GIE Reunion Europeenne and Protea
                                                                           Assurance on the following question :
     a . Does ' insurance' within the meaning of Article 13
          ( B ) ( a ) of the sixth VAT Directive include the classes
          of activity, in particular ' assistance ' activity, listed in
          the Annex to Council Directive 73/239/EEC ( 2 ) (the             With regard in particular to the independent concept of
          first Council Directive on non-life insurance ), as              ' same parties' used in Article 21 of the Convention of
          amended by Directive 84/641 /EEC ( 3 )?                          27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of
                                                                           judgments in civil and commercial matters, is there inter
                                                                           State lis alibi pendens for the purposes of that provision
     b. Do the 'related services of [...] insurance agents' in             where a court of one contracting State is seised by the
          Article 13 ( B ) ( a ) of the sixth VAT Directive                insurer of a vessel that has been shipwrecked with an action
          constitute or include the activities referred to in              seeking from the owner and the insurer of the cargo on
          Article 2 of Council Directive 77/92/EEC ( 4 )?                  board partial reimbursement, by way of contribution to the
                                                                           general average, of the refloating costs, when a court of
                                                                           another contracting State has already been seised by that
                                                                           owner and insurer with an action against the owner and the
4 . Is it compatible with Article 13 ( B ) ( a ) of the sixth VAT          charterer of the vessel for a declaration that they were not
     Directive for a Member State to restrict the scope of                 obliged to contribute to the general average, and the court
 ---pagebreak--- No C 370/ 10               EN |                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7 . 12 . 96
seised second declines jurisdiction, despite the parties in the               Action brought on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of
two cases not being strictly identical , on the ground that the               the European Communities against the Kingdom of
procedural law aipplicable before the court seised first                                                        Belgium
' restricts the opportunity for an insurer to be party to                                                 ( Case C-357/96 )
proceedings in which the insured is involved' so that the
insurer of the vessel is in fact also involved, through the                                                 ( 96/C 370/23 )
intermediary of the insured, in the case brought first ?
                                                                              An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                              on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
                                                                              Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal
                                                                              Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Action brought on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of                        Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                               Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                  Belgium
                            ( Case C-356/96 )                                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                              the Court should :
                              ( 96/C 370/22 )
                                                                              — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                                 and administrative measures necessary in order to
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                              comply with Commission Directive 94/ 15/EEC of
on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of the European                                 15 April 1994 ( ] ) adapting to technical progress for the
Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal                                   first time Council Directive 90/220/EEC ( 2 ) on the
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                             deliberate release into the environment of genetically
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                                 modified organisms, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                            to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
                                                                              — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should :
                                                                              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
      and administrative measures necessary in order to                       Case C-356/96 ( 3 ); the time limit for transposition expired
      comply with Commission Directive 91 /410/EEC of                         on 30 June 1994 .
      22 July 1991 ( ] ) adapting to technical progress for the
       14th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC ( 2 ) on the                    (!) OJ No L 103 , 22 . 4 . 1994, p . 20 .
      approximation of laws, regulations and administrative                   ( 2 ) OJNoL 117, 8 . 5 . 1990 , p . 15 .
      provisions relating to the classification, packaging and                ( 3 ) See Case C-356/96 above .
      labelling of dangerous substances, and/or by failing to
      communicate those measures, the Kingdom of Belgium
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                              Action brought on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of
                                                                              the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Belgium
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                                         Case C-358/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 370/24 )
In view of the binding nature of directives, as provided for
in the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, and
in view of the first paragraph of Article 5 of that Treaty,                   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
Member States to whom a directive is addressed are obliged                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
to achieve the results pursued by it within the time limit                    on 31 October 1996 by the Commission of the European
prescribed therein, that is to say, to transpose its provisions               Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen, Legal
into national law in such a way that it produces its full                     Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
effect as soon as the time limit for transposition expires.                   Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
That time limit expired on 1 August 1992 but the Kingdom                      Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
of Belgium has not adopted the necessary measures .
                                                                              The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                              the Court should :
f 1 ) OJ No L 228 , 17. 8 . 1991 , p . 67.
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition ( 1967 ), p. 234 .
                                                                              — declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                                and administrative measures necessary in order to