title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 10 December 1998 in Case C-328/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Glob-Sped AG v. Hauptzollamt Lörrach (Combined Nomenclature - Headings Nos 3004 and 2106 - Vitamin C-based preparations)

text:
20.2.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 48/3
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before               The Combined Nomenclature, as laid down in Annex I to
that court between Georg Bruner, trading as Georg                   Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of 14 July
Bruner' and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas Ð on the                      1992 amending Annexes I and II to Council Regulation
interpretation     of    Commission       Regulation    (EEC)        (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an                       nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff is to be
agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds (OJ             interpreted as meaning that products such as Taxofit
L 366, 24.12.1981, p. 1) Ð the Court (Third Chamber),                Vitamin C + Ca Brausetabletten and Taxofit Vitamin C
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), President of             Kautabletten are to be classified under heading No 3004.
the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida and C.
Gulmann, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 10 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Poultry cuts made up of two hind quarters of a fowl still
attached to one another by the skin of the back constitute
quarters' (code 0207 41 11 000) within the meaning of
the nomenclature of agricultural products for export                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
refunds established by Commission Regulation (EEC)
No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987.                                                            (Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1998
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.
                                                                     in Case C-374/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): Florian Vorderbrüggen v.
                                                                                Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (1)
                                                                     (Additional levy on milk Ð Special reference quantity Ð
                                                                                Definitive grant Ð Conditions)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                          (1999/C 48/06)
                       (First Chamber)
                    of 10 December 1998                                             (Language of the case: German)
in Case C-328/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Glob-Sped AG v. Hauptzollamt
                          Lörrach (1)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Combined Nomenclature Ð Headings Nos 3004 and                                published in the European Court Reports)
           2106 Ð Vitamin C-based preparations)
                        (1999/C 48/05)
                                                                     In Case C-374/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf for a
               (Language of the case: German)                        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                     court between Florian Vorderbrüggen and Hauptzollamt
                                                                     Bielefeld Ð on the validity of Article 3(a)(3) of
                                                                     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 of 3 June
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of the
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     additional levy referred to in Article 5(c) of Regulation
                                                                     (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ L 139, 4.6.1988, p. 12), as
In Case C-328/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89 (OJ L 110,
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for              21.4.1989, p. 27) Ð the Court (Second Chamber),
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before               composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of
that court between Glob-Sped AG and Hauptzollamt                     Chamber, G. F. Mancini and R. Schintgen, Judges; P.
Lörrach Ð on the interpretation of heading No 3004 of                LeÂger, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of                 Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
14 July 1992 amending Annexes I and II to Council                    16 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ
L 267, 14.9.1992, p. 1) concerning the classification of             Consideration of the question referred has not revealed
vitamin C-based preparations Ð the Court (First                      any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the                     first subparagraph of Article 3(a)(3) of Commission
Chamber, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges;              Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 of 3 June 1988 laying
N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,            down detailed rules for the application of the additional
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 December               levy referred to in Article 5(c) of Regulation (EEC)
1998, in which it has ruled:                                         No 804/68, as added by Regulation (EEC) No 1033/89, in


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 21 February 2002 in Case C-215/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten): Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen v Petra Rydergård (Social security — Unemployment benefit — Conditions governing the retention of entitlement to benefits for an unemployed person travelling to another Member State)

text:
C 109/10                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           4.5.2002
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                    2.    Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                             7 March 2002
in Case C-169/00: Commission of the European Communi-                                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   ties v Republic of Finland (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Sixth
                                                                                21 February 2002
VAT Directive, Articles 2 and 28(3)(b) and point 2 of
Annex F — Act of Accession of the Republic of Finland —
Exemption for the services supplied by authors, artists and                in Case C-215/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
    performers of works of art — Derogating provisions)                    the Regeringsrätten): Arbetsmarknadsstyrelsen v Petra
                                                                                Rydergård (1)
                            (2002/C 109/14)                                (Social security — Unemployment benefit — Conditions
                                                                           governing the retention of entitlement to benefits for an
                                                                              unemployed person travelling to another Member State)
                     (Language of the case: Finnish)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/15)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         (Language of the case: Swedish)
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-169/00, Commission of the European Communities                   In Case C-215/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
(Agents: E. Paasivirta and E. Traversa) v Republic of Finland              EC by the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in
(Agent: E. Bygglin): Application for a declaration that, by                the proceedings pending before that court between Arbetsmar-
maintaining in force legislation under which supplies of works             knadsstyrelsen and Petra Rydergård, on the interpretation of
of art by artists or their agents and imports of works of art              Article 69(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
bought directly from artists are exempted from value added                 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
tax, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations          employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
under Article 2 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of               of their families moving within the Community, as amended
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                 and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value                 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Fifth
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),              Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of              Chamber, S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola and
the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola,                   C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate Gen-
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 February
has given a judgment on 7 March 2002, in which it:                         2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           1.    The question as to the conditions under which a person may be
1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force legislation exempting               regarded as having remained available to the employment
      from value added tax the sale of a work of art by the artist,              services of the competent State within the meaning of
      either directly or through an agent, and the importation of a              Article 69(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
      work of art by the owner-artist, the Republic of Finland has               14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
      failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of the Sixth              employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
      Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                         their families moving within the Community, as amended and
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                 updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December
      turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 1996, must be examined on the basis of the rules of national
      basis of assessment.                                                       law of that State.
 ---pagebreak--- 4.5.2002                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 109/11
2.    Article 69(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and            On a proper construction of Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)
      updated by Regulation No 118/97, must be construed as                No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical
      meaning that, in order to retain entitlement to unemployment         nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by
      benefits as provided for therein, a person seeking work must         Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November 1997, immunoglobul-
      have remained available to the employment services of the            in concentrates from dried, defatted and decaseinated colostrum,
      competent State for a total of at least four weeks after the         standardised by means of lactose, are to be classified as pharmaceutical
      commencement of unemployment, regardless of whether that             products in Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature.
      period was continuous or not.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
(1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                           7 March 2002
                                                                                7 February 2002
in Case C-259/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Finanzgericht München): Biochem Zusatzstoffe                      in Case C-279/00: Commission of the European Communi-
Handels- und Produktions GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion                                              ties v Italian Republic (1)
                            Nürnberg (1)
(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Tariff                          (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
classification of immunoglobulin concentrates from col-                    Freedom to supply services — Free movement of capital —
  ostrum — Classification in the Combined Nomenclature)                               Business of providing temporary labour)
                          (2002/C 109/16)                                                             (2002/C 109/17)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                               (Language of the case: Italian)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                              in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-259/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Finanzgericht München (Germany) for a preliminary                In Case C-279/00, Commission of the European Communities
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                (Agents: E. Traversa and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agent:
Biochem Zusatzstoffe Handels- und Produktions GmbH and                     U. Leanza, assisted by D. Del Gaizo): Application for a
Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg, on the interpretation of Chap-               declaration that, by requiring undertakings engaged in the
ter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature, set out in Annex I to                 provision of temporary labour which are established in other
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the                 Member States to maintain their registered office or a branch
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common                      office on Italian territory, and to lodge a guarantee of ITL
Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1), as amended by                        700 million with a credit institution having its registered office
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November                        or a branch office on Italian territory, the Italian Republic has
1997 (OJ 1997 L 312, p. 1), the Court (Fourth Chamber),                    failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 EC and 56 EC,
composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting for the                    the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken, President
President of the Fourth Chamber, A. La Pergola and                         of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur),
C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General;                V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 March 2002, in              General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 Febru-
which it has ruled:                                                        ary 2002, in which it:


title: Case T-189/13: Action brought on 3 April 2013 — PP Nature-Balance Lizenz v Commission

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/20

         Action brought on 3 April 2013 — PP Nature-Balance Lizenz v Commission
   (Case T-189/13)
   2013/C 164/36
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: PP Nature-Balance Lizenz GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Ambrosius, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Implementing Decision of the European Commission C(2013) 369 final of 21 January 2013 concerning, in the framework of Article 31 of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the marketing authorisations for the medicinal products for human use which contain the active substance ‘tolperisone’;

               —

               In the alternative, annul the Implementing Decision of the European Commission C(2013) 369 final of 21 January 2013 to the extent that it requires the Member States to remove the therapeutic indication ‘painful muscle spasms particularly as a result of diseases of the spine and paraxial joints’ of the authorisations for tolperisone in oral formulation and to amend the authorisations accordingly;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea, alleging infringement of Article 116 of Directive 2001/83/EC (1)

               In this context it is claimed inter alia that the contested decision is based on an incorrect assessment of the criterion of lack of therapeutic efficacy. In addition the applicant argues that the wrong criteria were used when making the benefit-risk assessment of tolperisone in oral formulation.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 10a of and Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC
               The applicant claims in this regard that the contested decision fails to take into account the criteria contained in Article 10a of and Annex I to Directive 2001/83/EC in the evaluation of efficacy and safety and in its benefit-risk assessment. To that extent too the contested decision is based according to the applicant on the use of incorrect standards of assessment.

               3.

               Third plea, alleging the infringement of the principle of proportionality and of Article 22a(1)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC
               The applicant claims in the context of this third plea that, instead of amending the authorisations affected with immediate effect, an efficacy study within the meaning of Article 22(a)(1)(b) of Directive 2001/83/EC should have been ordered as a less intrusive measure. The applicant claims that the Commission did not address this possibility with sufficient rigour and that it was rejected by the scientific committee for medicinal products for human use of the EMA [European Medicines Agency] on grounds which are not legally sound.

      (1)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)


title: Case C-275/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Germany) — Alois Kibler jun. v Land Baden-Württemberg (Milk and milk products — Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Regulations (EEC) Nos 857/84, 590/85 and 1546/88 — Transfer of the reference quantity following the return of part of a holding — Landlord who is not himself a producer of milk or milk products — Rural lease voluntarily brought to an end)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/15

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 October 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Germany) — Alois Kibler jun. v Land Baden-Württemberg
   (Case C-275/05) (1)

   (Milk and milk products - Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 - Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector - Regulations (EEC) Nos 857/84, 590/85 and 1546/88 - Transfer of the reference quantity following the return of part of a holding - Landlord who is not himself a producer of milk or milk products - Rural lease voluntarily brought to an end)
   (2006/C 326/30)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alois Kibler jun.

      Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen — Interpretation of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector (OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 590/85 of 26 February 1985 (OJ 1985 L 68, p. 1), and of Article 7(2), (3) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 of 3 June 1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 (OJ 1988 L 139, p. 12) — Return to a landlord, who is not himself a producer, of part of a dairy farm which has been let out — Transfer of the reference quantity which is attached thereto
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 590/85 of 26 February 1985, and points 2, 3 and 4 of the first subparagraph of Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 of 3 June 1988 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 are to be interpreted as meaning that on the return of a leased part of a holding the corresponding reference quantity for that part cannot pass to the landlord if he is not a milk producer, does not intend to carry out such an activity and does not intend to grant a lease for the undertaking concerned to a milk producer.

               2.

               Article 7(1) of Regulation No 857/84, as amended by Regulation No 590/85, and point 4 of the first subparagraph of Article 7 of Regulation No 1546/88 preclude the reference quantity from being retained by the tenant on the ending of a rural lease, where the lease has been voluntarily brought to an end.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.09.2005.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 11 July 2002 in Joined Cases T-137/99 and T-18/00: Natalia Martínez Páramo and Serena Angioli and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Temporary agent's contract — Admissibility — Act adversely affecting an official — Compliance with time-limits set by Staff Regulations — Second renewal of a temporary agent's contract — Articles 2(a) and (b), 3(a), 8, 9, 10(1), 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the CEOS — Termination of a fixed-term contract — Notice provided for in Articles 47(2) and 74 CEOS)

text:
14.9.2002              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 219/15
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 4.     Dismisses the application in Case T-18/00 as inadmissible.
                                                                           5.     The parties shall bear their own costs, including those incurred
                          of 11 July 2002                                         in the proceedings for interim relief.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ No C 246 of 28.8.1999 and OJ No C 79 of 18.3.2000.
in Joined Cases T-137/99 and T-18/00: Natalia Martínez
Páramo and Serena Angioli and Others v Commission of
                  the European Communities (1)
(Temporary agent’s contract — Admissibility — Act
adversely affecting an official — Compliance with time-
limits set by Staff Regulations — Second renewal of a
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
temporary agent’s contract — Articles 2(a) and (b), 3(a), 8,
9, 10(1), 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the CEOS — Termination of
a fixed-term contract — Notice provided for in Articles 47(2)                                         of 11 July 2002
                          and 74 CEOS)
                                                                           in Case T-152/99: Hijos de Andrés Molina, SA (Hamsa) v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities ( 1)
                         (2002/C 219/38)
                                                                           (State aid — Action for annulment — Aid granted on the
                    (Language of the case: French)                         basis of general aid schemes approved by the Commission —
                                                                           Aid for rescue and restructuring of firms in difficulty —
                                                                           Private investor criterion — Remission of debts — Manifest
                                                                           error of assessment — Effect on trade between Member
                                                                                States)
In Joined Cases T-137/99 and T-18/00: Natalia Martínez                                                (2002/C 219/39)
Páramo, residing in Brussels, and 32 others, and Serena
Angioli, residing in Brussels, and 4 others, former temporary
agents of the Commission of the European Communities,                                          (Language of the case: Spanish)
represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: initially G. Valsesia, subsequently F. Clo-
tuche-Duvieusart) — application for, first, annulment of the
                                                                           In Case T-152/99: Hijos de Andrés Molina, SA (Hamsa),
decisions of the Commission of 23 March, 18 May and                        established in Seville (Spain), represented by L. M. Olivencia
31 May 1999 confirming the termination of the applicants’
                                                                           Brugger and J. L. Ballester García-Izquierdo, lawyers, with an
employment contracts of 30 June 1999 and the expiry date
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg, supported by Kingdom of
for each of those contracts and, secondly, annulment of the                Spain (Agent: D. S. Ortiz Vaamonde), against Commission of
legal characterisation of the applicants’ contracts — the Court
                                                                           the European Communities (Agents: I. Martínez del Peral and
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke,
                                                                           D. Triantafyllou) — application for annulment of Commission
President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; J. Plingers,         Decision 1999/484/EC of 3 February 1999 concerning State
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 July
                                                                           aid which the Spanish Government has granted to the
2002, in which it:                                                         company Hijos de Andrés Molina SA (Hamsa) (OJ 1999 L 193,
                                                                           p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended
                                                                           Composition), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. García-
1.    Declares admissible the application in Case T-137/99 in so           Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, M. Vilaras and N.J. Forwood, Judges;
      far as it was made by Mr Marenne.                                    O. Speltdoorn, Legal Secretary, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 11 July 2002, in which it:
2.    Declares inadmissible the application in Case T-137/99 in so
      far as it was made by the other applicants.                          1.     Annuls Article 1(3) of Commission Decision 1999/484/EC
                                                                                of 3 February 1999 concerning State aid which the Spanish
                                                                                Government has granted to the company Hijos de Andrés
3.    Dismisses the application in Case T-137/99.                                 Molina SA (Hamsa).


title: Case T-112/06: Action brought on  7 April 2006  — Inter-IKEA v OHIM

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/46

         Action brought on 7 April 2006 — Inter-IKEA v OHIM
   (Case T-112/06)
   (2006/C 131/86)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Inter-IKEA Systems BV (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: Jonas Gulliksson and Jens Olsson, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Walter Waibel
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision, and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs incurred both in these proceedings and in the invalidity proceedings before OHIM.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: the figurative Trade Mark ‘idea’ for goods and services in classes 16, 20 and 42 (Community Trade Mark registration No 283 952)
   Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Walter Waibel
   Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Inter IKEA Systems B.V.

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: several Community and national, figurative and word trade marks for goods and services in classes 16, 20 and 42
   Decision of the Cancellation Division: invalidity of the trade mark ‘idea’

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: rejection of the request for invalidity

      Pleas in law: infringement of Articles 52(1)(a) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 2 May 1996 in Case C-231/94 (reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Faaborg-Gelting Linien A/S v. Finanzamt Flensburg (Reference for a preliminary ruling - VAT - Restaurant transactions on board ship - Place of taxable transactions)

text:
No C 197/4           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                            6 . 7 . 96
             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                      ( Sixth Chamber)                                                        ( Sixth Chamber )
                        of 2 May 1996                                                          of 2 May 1996
in Case C-133/94 : Commission of the European                       in Case C-231/94 (reference to the Court for a preliminary
          Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium                         ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Faaborg-Gelting Linien
(Assessment of the effects of certain projects on the                               A/S v. Finanzamt Flensburg ( 1 )
      environment — Council Directive 85/337/EEC)                   (Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT — Restaurant
                         96/C 197/07                                transactions on board ship — Place of taxable
                                                                                transactions)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/08 )
               (Language of the case: Dutch)                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                    (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
        published in the European Court Reports)                    In Case C-231 /94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                    of the EC Treaty by the Bundesfinanzhof for a preliminary
                                                                    ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                    Faaborg-Gelting Linien A/S and Finanzamt Flensburg on the
In Case C-133/94 : Commission of the European                       interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
Communities (Agents : Rolf Wägenbauer and Marc H. van               17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the
der Woude ) v. Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder ),           Member States relating to turnover taxes — common
supported by the Federal Republic of Germany (Agent:                system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment ( OJ
Ernst Rôder ) — application for a declaration that, by not          L 145 , 1977, p . 1 ), in particular Articles 5 , 6 , 8 and 9 thereof
completely and correctly transposing into Belgian Law               — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ) composed of C. N. Kakouris,
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the                 President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini
assessment of the effects of certain public and private             ( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn,
projects on the environment ( OJ L 175 , 1985 , p . 40 ), the       Judges, Advocate-General : G. Cosmas, Registrar: H. von
Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under       Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May
that Directive and Articles 5 and 1 89 of the EC Treaty — the       1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of C. N. Kakouris
( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F.          restaurant transactions are to be regarded as supplies of
Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; P.        services within the meaning of Article 6 (1 ) of the Sixth
Léger, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal             Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 May          harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
1996, the operative part of which is as follows :                   turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:
                                                                    uniform basis of assessment, which, under Article 9 (1 ) of
                                                                    the Directive, are deemed to be carried out at the place
                                                                    where the supplier has established his business.
1 . by not completely and correctly transposing into Belgian
                                                                    (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
    Law Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on
    the assessment ofthe effects ofcertain public and private
    projects on the environment, the Kingdom of Belgium
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive
    and under Article 189 of the EC Treaty;                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 3 May 1996
2 , the Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs;             in Case C-399/95 R: Federal Republic of Germany,
                                                                    supported by Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, v.
                                                                            Commission of the European Communities ( 1 )
3 , the Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to bear its           (Interim measures — Suspension of the operation of a
    own costs .                                                                measure — State aids — ECSC Treaty)
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/09 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(M OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                    In Case C-399/95 R: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
                                                                    Ernst Roder and Bernd Kloke ) supported by Neue


title: Case C-212/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Helmut Butz, Christel Bachmann-Butz, Frederike Butz v Société Air France SA

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/57

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 May 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Helmut Butz, Christel Bachmann-Butz, Frederike Butz v Société Air France SA
   (Case C-212/12) (1)

   2013/C 225/112
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case T-502/08: Action brought on 21 November 2008 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Deutsche BP (SunGasoline)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/48

         Action brought on 21 November 2008 — Volkswagen v OHIM — Deutsche BP (SunGasoline)
   (Case T-502/08)
   (2009/C 44/84)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: H.-P. Schrammek, C. Drzymalla and S Risthaus, 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 BP AG (Gelsenkirchen, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 September 2008 in appeal case R-513/2007-4, and

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Volkswagen.

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘SunGasoline’ in respect of goods and services in Classes 4, 7, 12, 35, 37 and 39 (Application No 3 418 647).

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Deutsche BP AG.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘GASOLIN’ (Trade mark No 763 901) in respect of goods in Class 4.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld for certain goods in Class 4.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15(2)(b) in conjunction with Article 43(2) of Regulation No 40/94 (1) in that legally accepted use of the mark in opposition was not proved to the requisite level, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/1994 in that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

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


title: Case T-157/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — JingAo Solar e.a. v Council

text:
               26.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 159/33

         Action brought on 28 February 2014 — JingAo Solar e.a. v Council
   (Case T-157/14)
   2014/C 159/45
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: JingAo Solar Co. Ltd (Ningjin, Chine); Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd (Shanghai, Chine); Yangzhou JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd (Yangzhou, Chine); Hefei JA Solar Technology Co. Ltd (Hefei, Chine); Shanghai JA Solar PV Technology Co. Ltd (Shanghai); and JA Solar GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Willems, S. De Knop and J. Charles, lawyers)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the action admissible;

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1), as far as it applies to the applicants;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components consigned from the People’s Republic of China whereas the Notice of initiation mentioned only crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components originating in the People’s Republic of China, the Institutions violated Articles 5(10) and 5(11) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (1).

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that by imposing anti-dumping measures on crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components that were not subject to an anti-dumping investigation, the Institutions violated Articles 1 and 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that by applying a non-market economy methodology for calculating the dumping margin of products from market economy countries, the Institutions violated Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that by conducting one single investigation for two distinct products (i.e., crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and cells), the Institutions violated Article 1(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that by failing to examine the applicants’ market economy treatment requests, the Institutions violated Article 2(7)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009;

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging that by failing to separately quantify the injury suffered by the Union industry caused by both the dumped imports and other known factors and, as a consequence, by imposing a duty rate in excess of what is necessary to remove the injury caused by the dumped imports to the Union industry, the Institutions violated Articles 3 and 9(4) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)


title: Case C-288/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Post AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third party: Citipost Gesellschaft für Kurier- und Postdienstleistungen mbH Hannover

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 3 July 2006 — Deutsche Post AG v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third party: Citipost Gesellschaft für Kurier- und Postdienstleistungen mbH Hannover
   (Case C-288/06)
   (2006/C 261/12)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Deutsche Post AG

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Third party: Citipost Gesellschaft für Kurier- und Postdienstleistungen mbH Hannover
   Question referred
   Is Article 47(2), in conjunction with Article 95 EC, the fifth indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in the version as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (1), to be interpreted as meaning that, where a universal service provider applies special tariffs for business customers who give postal items to the sorting office pre-sorted for the postal network, that universal service provider is obliged to apply those special tariffs also to undertakings which collect postal items from the sender and give them pre-sorted for the postal network at the same access point and on the same terms and conditions as business customers, without the universal service provider being permitted to refuse to do so, having regard to its obligation to provide a universal service?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21.


title: Case T-299/13: Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — AATC Trading (ALIA)

text:
               6.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 178/33

         Order of the General Court of 17 March 2017 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — AATC Trading (ALIA)
   (Case T-299/13) (1)

   (2017/C 178/48)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 215, 27.7.2013.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of  6 October 2005  in Case C-243/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (VAT — Deduction of input tax paid — Capital goods financed by subsidies)

text:
               26.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 296/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 6 October 2005
   in Case C-243/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (VAT - Deduction of input tax paid - Capital goods financed by subsidies)
   (2005/C 296/03)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-243/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: E. Traversa, assisted by N. Coutrelis, avocat) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Jurgensen-Mercier), supported by: Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 6 June 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 October 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by introducing a special rule limiting the deductibility of value added tax on the purchase of capital goods where they were financed by subsidies, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law, in particular under Articles 17 and 19 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995;

               2.

               Orders the Republic of France to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, of 19.07.2003.


title: Case C-349/99 P: Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by the Commission against the order made on 14 September 1999 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-145/98 ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH v Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.1.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 20/7
(Finance Court) Münster, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in              1. The appeal is dismissed.
the proceedings pending before that court between Eurowings
Luftverkehrs AG and Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna — on the
interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after                  2. Ms Gluiber is to bear her own costs.
amendment, Article 49 EC) — the Court, composed of:
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida
(Rapporteur), D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón (Presidents of Cham-
bers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,            (1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.
P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo,
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 1999, in which
it has ruled:
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)          Appeal brought on 6 January 1999 by Anthony Goldstein
precludes national legislation on trade tax such as that at issue in the   against the order made on 28 October 1998 by the Court
main action.                                                               of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                           Chamber) in Case T-100/98 between the present appellant
                                                                               and the Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
                                                                                (Case C-4/99 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/13)
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                           An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities on 6 January 1999 by Anthony
                          (First Chamber)                                  Goldstein against the order made on 28 October 1998 by the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fourth
                                                                           Chamber) in Case T-100/98 between the present appellant and
                       of 14 October 1999                                  the Commission of the European Communities.
in Case C-188/99 P: Karola Gluiber v Council of the                        By order of 8 July 1999, the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber)
European Union and Commission of the European Com-                         dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay the
                             munities (1)                                  costs.
       (Manifestly inadmissible and unfounded appeal)
                           (2000/C 20/12)
                                                                           Appeal brought on 22 September 1999 by the Com-
                                                                           mission against the order made on 14 September 1999 by
                   (Language of the case: German)                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                           (Third Chamber) in Case T-145/98 ADT Projekt Gesell-
                                                                           schaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter
In Case C-188/99 P: Karola Gluiber, residing at Staudernheim                   mbH v Commission of the European Communities
(Germany), represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt,
Hamm, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Marguit Capus-Leelare, 117 Avenue Gaston                                              (Case C-349/99 P)
Diderich — appeal against the order of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
16 March 1999 in Case T-147/98 Gluiber v Council and                                                (2000/C 20/14)
Commission (not published in the European Court Reports),
seeking to have that order set aside, the other parties to the
proceedings being the Council of the European Union and the                An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of
Commission of the European Communities — the Court (First                  the European Communities on 22 September 1999 by the
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber,                Commission of the European Communities against the order
D.A.O. Edward and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges; A. La Pergola,             made on 14 September 1999 by the Court of First Instance of
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-145/98
14 October 1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/8                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22.1.2000
Tierzüchter mbH v Commission of the European Communi-                     3. Does the question whether the treatment as a whole or
ties, in which the Commission was requested to produce a                       only a proportion thereof involved in-patient care affect
certified true copy of certain minutes.                                        the answers to these questions?
                                                                          (1) — To ensure that provision of medical care by doctors and in
By order of 4 October 1999, the Court of Justice (Third                           hospitals is balanced and accessible to all.
Chamber) dismissed the appeal as manifestly inadmissible and                  — To maintain the principle of benefits in kind applied in the
ordered the Commission to pay the costs.                                           Netherlands.
                                                                              — To ensure the financial equilibrium of the Netherlands social
                                                                                security scheme.
                                                                          Appeal brought on 12 October 1999 by the Xunta de
                                                                          Galicia against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the
                                                                          Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad                   European Communities in Case T-194/95 between Area-
van Beroep by order of that court of 6 October 1999 in                    cova, S.A. and 31 Others and the Council of the European
the cases of 1. V.G. Müller-Faurd against Onderlinge                                                      Union
Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z. Zorgverzekeringen U.A. and
2. E.E.M van Riet against Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschap-
                  pij Z.A.O. Zorgverzekeringen                                                      (Case C-388/99 P)
                                                                                (2000/C 20/16)
                          (Case C-385/99)
                                                                          An appeal against the order made on 8 July 1999 by the Third
                                                                          Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                           (2000/C 20/15)                                 Communities in Case T-194/95 between Areacova, S.A. and
                                                                          31 Others and the Council of the European Union was brought
                                                                          before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    12 October 1999 by the Xunta de Galicia, represented by
European Communities by order of the Centrale Raad van                    Vı́ctor M. Vázquez-Portomeñe Seijas, Creus Carreras, of the
Beroep [Higher Social Security Court] of 6 October 1999,                  Santiago de Compostela Bar, with an address for service at the
received at the Court Registry on 11 October 1999, for a                  Fundación Galicia-Europa, Avenue Milcamps 105 B, 1030
preliminary ruling in the cases of 1. V.G. Müller-Fauré against           Brussels.
Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z. Zorgverzekeringen
U.A. and 2. E.E.M. van Riet against Onderlinge Waarborgmaat-              The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
schappij Z.A.O. Zorgverzekeringen on the following questions:
                                                                          1) Set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July
                                                                               1999 in Case T-194/95 by reason of all or any of the
1. Are Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 49                    defects indicated and draw from the setting aside of that
     and 50 EC) to be interpreted as meaning that in principle                 order all legal consequences, either giving judgment on the
     a provision such as Article 9(4) of the Ziekenfondswet                    substance or referring the matter back to the Court of First
     [Law on Health Insurance], read in conjunction with                       Instance;
     Article 1 of the Regeling hulp in het buitenland zieken-
     fondsverzekering [Regulation on health care abroad under             2) Order the defendant before the Court of First Instance of
     the sickness insurance rules], is incompatible therewith in               the European Communities to pay the costs, at the same
     so far as it stipulates that in order to assert his entitlement           time giving a decision on the order for costs made against
     to benefits a person insured with a health insurance fund                 the defendant in the matter at first instance in the event of
     requires the prior authorisation of that fund to seek                     the present appeal being upheld wholly or in part.
     treatment from a person or establishment outside the
     Netherlands with whom or which the health insurance
     fund has not concluded an agreement?                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — Infringement of Community law involving misapplication
2. If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative, do              and misinterpretation of Article 230 (previously 173) as
     the objectives of the Netherlands system of benefits in kind              regards rejection of the allegation of misuse of powers
     referred to above (1) constitute an overriding reason in the              vitiating the contested regulation since there is a total
     general interest capable of justifying a restriction on the               divergence between the ostensible aim thereof and the aim
     fundamental principle of freedom to provide services?                     really pursued by its adoption.


title: Case C-4/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Kaveh Puid (Asylum — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 4 — Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 — Article 3(1) and (2) — Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national — Articles 6 to 12 — Criteria for determining the Member State responsible — Article 13 — Fall-back clause)

text:
               11.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 9/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Bundesrepublik Deutschland v Kaveh Puid
   (Case C-4/11) (1)

   (Asylum - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 4 - Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 - Article 3(1) and (2) - Determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national - Articles 6 to 12 - Criteria for determining the Member State responsible - Article 13 - Fall-back clause)
   2014/C 9/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Respondent: Kaveh Puid

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Interpretation of the first sentence of Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. 1) — Duty of a Member State to take responsibility for examining an asylum application on the basis of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 where there is a risk of infringement of the applicant’s fundamental rights and/or of non-application by the Member State responsible for the application according to the criteria laid down in the regulation of the minimum standards laid down in Directives 2003/9/EC and 2005/85/EC

      Operative part of the judgment

   Where the Member States cannot be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member State initially identified as responsible in accordance with the criteria set out in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national provide substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker concerned would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is a matter for the referring court to verify, the Member State which is determining the Member State responsible is required not to transfer the asylum seeker to the Member State initially identified as responsible and, subject to the exercise of the right itself to examine the application, to continue to examine the criteria set out in that chapter, in order to establish whether another Member State can be identified as responsible in accordance with one of those criteria or, if it cannot, under Article 13 of the Regulation.
   Conversely, in such a situation, a finding that it is impossible to transfer an asylum seeker to the Member State initially identified as responsible does not in itself mean that the Member State which is determining the Member State responsible is required itself, under Article 3(2) of Regulation No 343/2003, to examine the application for asylum.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 26.3.2011.


9 . 11 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 336/23
           subject to the levy for the purposes of the latter's       3 . If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative,
           business , with the exception of sales of businesses ,          must that increase be applied to the price corresponding
           and                                                             to payment CAD or to the price agreed as payable in 90
                                                                           days ?
     ( b ) the turnover tax payable by the person subject to
           the levy on imports of goods for his business or on        (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 of 23 March 1992
           purchases effected within the Community for the                imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton
           purposes of his business ?                                     yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey ( OJ No L 82 , 27 . 3 . 1992 ,
                                                                          p. 1 ).
2 . Does Article 33 of the sixth Directive prohibit the
     charging of a levy such as that described in the first
     question ?
(') OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                     Removal from the register of Case C-55/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/46 )
                                                                      By order of 1 8 July 1996 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                      register of Case C-55/95 : Commission of the European
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo                   Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .
Tribunal Administrativo (2? Sec^ao — Contencioso
Tributario ), by judgment of that court of 14 February 1996,          (') OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 .
in the case of ICT — Industria e Comercio Textil, SA v.
                          Fazenda Publica
                         ( Case C-322/96
                           ( 96/C 336/45 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C-156/94 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/47)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Supremo                     By order of 1 1 September 1996 the President of the Court of
Tribunal Administrativo ( 2? Sec^ao — Contencioso                     Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Tributario) ( Supreme Administrative Court (2nd Division —            from the register of Case C-156/94 : Commission of the
Fiscal Matters )) of 14 February 1996 , which was received at         European Communities, supported by the United Kingdom
the Court Registry on 2 October 1996 , for a preliminary              of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, v. Ireland, supported
ruling in the case of ICT — Industria e Comercio Textil , SA          by the Republic of France .
v. Fazenda Publica on the following questions :
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
1 . Is the increase ( of 1% for each month that elapses
     without payment being made, following the 30th day
     after the arrival of the goods in the customs territory of
     the Community ) provided for in Article 1 ( 3 ) of Council
     Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 (') of 23 March 1992
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-115/96 ( )
     applicable to the free-at-Community-frontier price
     whenever it is agreed that the price is payable on a date                                    96/C 336/48 )
     falling after that 30th day ?
                                                                      By order of 24 September 1996 the President of the Court of
2 . If the answer to the foregoing question cannot be                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
     unconditionally affirmative, as a result of the need for a       from the register of Case C-l 55/96 ( reference for a
     distinction to be drawn, is the said increase applicable in      preliminary ruling from the Tullilautakunta ( Customs
     circumstance like those in this case [see the facts proved]      Board ), Helsinki ): Application for an advance ruling by
     where the price of the imported goods, agreed as payable         Outokumpu Oy .
     in 90 days, was about 2,8 % greater than the price
     payable CAD ( cash against documents )?                          (') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  10 November 2005  in Case C-307/03: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Decision 2003/364/EC — Arable crops — Spot checks — Repayment of aid in respect of non-eligible areas — False declarations)

text:
               14.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 10/2

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 10 November 2005
   in Case C-307/03: Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - Decision 2003/364/EC - Arable crops - Spot checks - Repayment of aid in respect of non-eligible areas - False declarations)
   (2006/C 10/02)
   Language of the case: Italian
   In Case C-307/03 Italian Republic (Agents: I.M. Braguglia and M. Fiorilli) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 18 July 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 November 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003.


title: Case C-31/10: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Minerva Kulturreisen GmbH v Finanzamt Freital (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 26 — Special scheme for travel agents and tour operators — Scope — Sale of opera tickets without the provision of supplementary services)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/15

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof, Germany) — Minerva Kulturreisen GmbH v Finanzamt Freital
   (Case C-31/10) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 26 - Special scheme for travel agents and tour operators - Scope - Sale of opera tickets without the provision of supplementary services)
   2011/C 55/27
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minerva Kulturreisen GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Freital

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of Article 26 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Special scheme for travel agents — Sale of opera tickets without the provision of supplementary services

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 26 of Sixth Council Directive 77/338/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as not applying to the sale by a travel agent of opera tickets in isolation, without the provision of a travel service.

      (1)  OJ C 100, 17.4.2010.


title: Case T-120/14: Action brought on 18 February 2014 — PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/58

         Action brought on 18 February 2014 — PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council
   (Case T-120/14)
   2014/C 112/76
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PT Ciliandra Perkasa (West Jakarta, Indonesia) (represented by: F. Graafsma and J. Cornelis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia (OJ 2013 L 315, p. 2), insofar as it imposes an anti-dumping duty on the applicant; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council and the Commission (the ‘Institutions’) committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that the applicant's Crude Palm Oil (‘CPO’) purchase prices are distorted. More specifically, the Institutions failed to take into consideration that the applicant is a fully vertically integrated biodiesel producer and that, therefore, any alleged effect of the Differential Export Tax (‘DET’) system does not apply to it. In addition, the Institutions committed a manifest error of assessment in (1) not finding that the applicant and its related CPO suppliers constitute a single legal entity for all practical and even legal purposes and (2) finding that the applicant's CPO purchase prices from related companies were not at arm's length.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement does not allow to adjust costs for the simple reason that these are lower than in other markets or are ‘distorted’ due to government intervention. Article 2 (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51; hereafter referred to as ‘the basic Regulation’) should therefore be ruled inapplicable insofar as it provides for such a possibility to adjust costs.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the adjustment to the costs of CPO in the present case constitutes a violation of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation. More specifically, the applicant submits the following claims:

                           —

                           The necessary evidence on the basis of which it was concluded that the CPO prices on the Indonesian market are distorted is missing and the Institutions committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that CPO prices on the Indonesian market are distorted;

                           —

                           By using the reference export price (‘HPE’) to adjust the costs, the Institutions did not adjust the costs on ‘a reasonable basis’ as mandated by Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation and/or on the basis of ‘sources which are unaffected by such distortions’; and

                           —

                           Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation does not allow to adjust costs in situations in which prices are simply and allegedly ‘low’.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that in determining the reasonable profit margin, the Council did not comply with the legal obligation contained in Article 2(6)(c) of the basic Regulation. This Article requires that the amount of reasonable profit cannot exceed the profit normally realized by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging that the Institutions have failed to consider information and arguments submitted by the applicant in the course of the investigation. By doing so, they have not only breached their obligation of due diligence and proper administration by not carefully and impartially examining all relevant evidence before them but also failed to comply with the obligation contained in Article 20 (5) of the basic Regulation as well as with the obligation to provide reasons as mandated by Article 253 TEC (Article 296 TFEU).


title: Case T-170/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 May 2009 — Opus Arte UK v OHIM — Arte (OPUS ARTE)

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/50

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 May 2009 — Opus Arte UK v OHIM — Arte (OPUS ARTE)
   (Case T-170/07) (1)

   2009/C 153/95

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 170, 21.7.2007.


title: Case C-354/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora (Portugal) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Andrew Marcus Henderson v Novo Banco SA

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/24

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Évora (Portugal) lodged on 13 July 2015 — Andrew Marcus Henderson v Novo Banco SA
   (Case C-354/15)
   (2015/C 302/31)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Évora

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Andrew Marcus Henderson

      Respondent: Novo Banco SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Where a Portuguese court hearing a civil action against an individual residing in another Member State of the European Union has ordered that notice of service of those proceedings be served on that individual by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt, and the corresponding acknowledgment of receipt has not been returned, may the Portuguese court consider, in the light of the above Regulation [EC 1393/2007] (1) and the principles underlying it, that such service was effected, on the basis of the documents of the postal authority of the state in which the addressee of the letter resides which prove that the registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt was delivered to the addressee?

               2.

               Does the application of Article 230 of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure, in the case referred to the first question, infringe the Regulation and the principles underlying it?

               3.

               Does the application of Article 191(2) of the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure in the present case infringe the Regulation and principles underlying it?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79).


title: Case T-656/13: Action brought on 10 December 2013 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a cookie)

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/10

         Action brought on 10 December 2013 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a cookie)
   (Case T-656/13)
   2014/C 61/18
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 given in Case R 997/2013-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The three-dimensional trade mark representing a shape of a cookie with a smiling face for goods in Classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 11 133 683

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected partially the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7 (1) (b) CTMR


title: Action brought on 11 March 1996 by Crédit Lyonnais against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-31/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 133/31
Action brought on 11 March 1996 by Crédit Lyonnais                    Third, there has been a breach of essential procedural rules,
  against the Commission of the European Communities                  in that the defendant institution relied on the confidentiality
                         ( Case T-31 /96 )                            of business secrets in order to justify the omissions in both
                                                                      the reasoning and the enacting terms of its decision .
                           ( 96/C 133/64 )
                                                                      According to the applicant, the interest which it has in
                                                                      knowing what commitments are to be fulfilled as a
                (Language of the case: Frencb)                        condition of the decision cannot be affected by the
                                                                      confidentiality of business secrets .
An action against the Commission of the European                      Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c )
Communities was brought before the Court of First                     of the EC Treaty and a manifest error of assessment,
Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 1996                 inasmuch as the Commission regarded the reductions in
by Crédit Lyonnais , established in Paris, represented by             assets envisaged in the business plan communicated by the
Claude Lazarus, Chantai Momège and Jean-Pierre Jouyet,                French State to the Coimmission as inadequate and
of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg           demanded the sale of further assets . The applicant criticizes
at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .                         the Commission in that regard for its failure to take into
                                                                      consideration either the securization measures taken to
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          reduce its assets or the fact that the business plan involved a
                                                                      significant and adequate programme for the sale of banking
— annul Article 2 ( c ) of Decision 95/547/EC ,                       subsidiaries . It points out in that regard that the aid in issue
                                                                      is to be applied solely for the purposes of stabilizing the
                                                                      financial situation of the Crédit Lyonnais and that, in any
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs .                      event, the banking sector cannot be treated in the same way
                                                                      as a sector in which there is excessive structural production
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       capacity.
The applicant, a French bank in receipt of State aid, contests
the decision of the Commission attaching certain conditions
to the grant of the aid, and requiring in particular a
reduction in its commercial capacity by means of a cut of at
least 35 % in its commercial operations abroad, including             Action brought on 11 March 1996 by Société Générale
its European banking network, by the end of 1998 in                     against the Commission of the European Communities
accordance with the commitments given by France in that                                        ( Case T-32/96 )
regard .
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/65 )
The applicant maintains, first, that the contested decision
disregarded the fundamental principle of the right to a fair                          (Language of the case: French)
hearing, inasmuch as the applicant was never informed of,
nor heard in connection with, the additional commitments              An action against the Commission of the European
which the Commission required it to give , notwithstanding            Communities was brought before the Court of First
that those commitments were in fact given by the French               Instance of the European Communities on 11 March 1996
State and the Commission made its decision conditional
                                                                      by Société Générale, established in Paris, represented by
on compliance with them . Furthermore , the documents                 Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address for
communicated by third party competitors, which were sent              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen,
to the Commission and played a decisive part in justifying            67 Rue Ermesinde .
those additional requirements, were not brought to its
knowledge either . The applicant emphasizes in that regard
that the right to a fair hearing must be respected in State aid       The applicant claims that the Court should :
proceedings , not only for the benefit of the person to whom
the decision is addressed but also for the benefit of the             — annul in its entirety the Commission Decision of 26 July
undertaking receiving the aid; and that it was all the more               1995 giving conditional approval to the aid granted by
necessary to respect that right since the commitments given               France to the bank Crédit Lyonnais,
by France are of crucial importance in the present case and
the    Commission     has     a wide discretion   in  State aid       — order the Commission to pay all of the costs and
matters .                                                                 expenses incurred as a result of the present case .
The applicant pleads , second, breaches of the principle of           Pleas in law and main arguments
legal certainty and of the obligation imposed by Article 190
of the Treaty to provide a statement of reasons, in that              The applicant, one of the main competitors of the Crédit
the Commission has neither provided details of the                    Lyonnais and one of the banks most affected by the aid
commitments given by the French State nor justified the               granted by the French Government to the abovementioned
procedure to be followed in order to comply with the                  publicly owned bank, seeks the annulment of the
commitments described in Article 2 ( c ) of the contested             Commission's decision declaring that aid compatible with
decision .                                                            the common market. It argues that:


title: Case C-303/09: Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/11

         Action brought on 30 July 2009 — Commission v Italian Republic
   (Case C-303/09)
   2009/C 256/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and E. Righini, agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to take, within the prescribed time-limits, all the measures necessary to withdraw the aid scheme considered unlawful and incompatible with the common market by Commission Decision 2005/315/EC of 20 October 2004 on the prolongation of the ‘Tremonti-bis’ law in favour of municipalities seriously affected by natural disaters in 2002 (notified on 22 October 2004 under document No C(2004) 3893) (OJ 2005 L 100, p. 46) and to recover from the beneficiaries the aid granted under that scheme, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 5 and 6 of that decision and the EC Treaty.

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The time limit by which Italian Republic was required to withdraw the aid scheme and recover the unlawfully paid aid expired two months after the date of notification of the decision in question. More than four years later, the Italian authorities have yet to recover more than 25 % of the aid granted, in respect of which an order for payment has been issued, and have yet to communicate to the Commission the amount of aid paid to beneficiaries who were not entitled in the first place to benefit from the scheme.


title: Case T-132/13: Order of the General Court of 28 April 2014  — Deweerdt and Others v Court of Auditors

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/38

         Order of the General Court of 28 April 2014 — Deweerdt and Others v Court of Auditors
   (Case T-132/13) (1)

   2014/C 194/52
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case T-634/13: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Arctic Paper Mochenwangen v Commission (Environment — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Transitional rules concerning the harmonised allocation of emission allowances free of charge as from 2013 — Decision 2011/278/EU — National implementation measures submitted by Germany — Clause on cases with undue hardship — Freedom to conduct a business — Right to property — Proportionality)

text:
               10.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 395/49

      Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Arctic Paper Mochenwangen v Commission
      (Case T-634/13) (1)

      ((Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules concerning the harmonised allocation of emission allowances free of charge as from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementation measures submitted by Germany - Clause on cases with undue hardship - Freedom to conduct a business - Right to property - Proportionality))
      (2014/C 395/62)
      Language of the case: German

         Parties

         Applicant: Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH (Wolpertswende, Germany) (represented by: S. Kobes, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, Agents)

         Re:

      Application to annul Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as it rejects the inscription of the installation with identification code DE000000000000563 on the list of installations provided for in Article 11(1) of 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 2003 L 275, p. 32), and the preliminary total annual amounts of emission allowances allocated free of charge to that installation.

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1.

                  Dismisses the action;

                  2.

                  Orders Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.


title: Case C-53/07: Action brought on 6 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               24.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/11

         Action brought on 6 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-53/07)
   (2007/C 69/25)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and C. Zadra)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by not adopting, or in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/104/EC (1) of 14 October 2004 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 72/245/EEC relating to the radio interference (electromagnetic compatibility) of vehicles and amending Directive 70/156/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2004/104 into domestic law expired on 31 December 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 337, 13.11.2004, p. 13.


title: Case C-422/16: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v TofuTown.com GmbH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products — Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 — Article 78 and Annex VII, Part III — Decision 2010/791/EU — Definitions, designations and sales descriptions — ‘Milk’ and ‘milk products’ — Designations used for the promotion and marketing of purely plant-based products)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/18

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Trier — Germany) — Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV v TofuTown.com GmbH
   (Case C-422/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 78 and Annex VII, Part III - Decision 2010/791/EU - Definitions, designations and sales descriptions - ‘Milk’ and ‘milk products’ - Designations used for the promotion and marketing of purely plant-based products))
   (2017/C 277/24)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Trier

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb eV

      Defendant: TofuTown.com GmbH

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 78(2) and Annex VII, Part III to Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 must be interpreted as precluding the term ‘milk’ and the designations reserved by that regulation exclusively for milk products from being used to designate a purely plant based product in marketing or advertising, even if those terms are expanded upon by clarifying or descriptive terms indicating the plant origin of the product at issue, unless that product is listed in Annex I to Commission Decision 2010/791/EU of 20 December 2010 listing the products referred to in the second subparagraph of point III(1) of Annex XII to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007.

      (1)  OJ C 350, 26.9.2016.