title: Case C-206/04 P: Appeal brought on 10 May 2004 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 3 March 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-355/02 between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Zirh International Corp.

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/6

         Appeal brought on 10 May 2004 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment delivered on 3 March 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-355/02 between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Zirh International Corp.
   (Case C-206/04 P)
   (2004/C 179/12)
   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 3 March 2004 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-355/02 (1) between Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Zirh International Corp., was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 May 2004 by Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG, established in Cologne (Germany), represented by T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer.
   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 3 March 2004 (Case T-355/02) and also the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the defendant and appellee of 1 October 2002 (Case No. R-657/2001-2);

               2.

               order the defendant and appellee to pay the costs in total.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The appellant submits that, given the similarity of the goods and services in question and the similarity in sound of the opposed marks, the Court of First Instance should have come to the conclusion that there is a likelihood of confusion between the opposed marks, pursuant to Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (2).
   The appellant therefore maintains that the Court of First Instance has misconstrued the requirements of Article 8(1)(b) and that the contested judgment should be annulled.

      (1)  OJ C 70, 22.03.2003, p. 23.

      (2)  Of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.01.1994, p. 1), as amended.


title: Case C-13/04: Action brought on 16 January 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

text:
C 71/10                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.3.2004
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesgerichts-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
hof by order of that Court of 27 November 2003 in
respect of the opening of insolvency proceedings against
                                                                          The period allowed for implementing the directive ended on
                  Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber
                                                                          30 June 1996. The Republic of Finland has not enacted
                                                                          national legislation in a manner ensuring legal certainty and
                          (Case C-1/04)                                   clarity as regards the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) of
                                                                          Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste
                                                                          and has not ensured that the above obligation is applied in
                         (2004/C 71/13)                                   practice.
                                                                          (1) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
                                                                              20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, OJ L 365
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        of 31.12.1994, p. 10.
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 27 November 2003, received at
the Court Registry on 2 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in respect of the opening of insolvency proceedings against
Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber on the following question:
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko
                                                                          Protodikeio Athens by order of that Court of 30 Septem-
Does the court of the Member State which receives a request
                                                                          ber 2003 in the case of Sphakianakis AEBE against
for the opening of insolvency proceedings still have jurisdiction
                                                                                Hellenic Republic
to open insolvency proceedings if the debtor moves the centre
of his or her main interests to the territory of another Member
State after filing the request but before the proceedings are                                        (Case C-23/04)
opened, or does the court of that other Member State acquire
jurisdiction?                                                                                (2004/C 71/15)
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          European Communities by order of the Dioikitiko Protodikeio
                                                                          Athens (Administrative Court of First Instance, Athens) of
                                                                          30 September 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                          26 January 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Action brought on 16 January 2004 by the Commission                       Sphakianakis AEBE against Hellenic Republic on the following
of the European Communities against the Republic of                       questions:
                             Finland
                                                                          1.    Does Article 31(2) of Protocol 4 (appended to the
                                                                                Europe agreement establishing an association between
                         (Case C-13/04)                                         the European Communities and their Member States, of
                                                                                the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other
                                                                                part) impose an obligation of mutual cooperation on the
                         (2004/C 71/14)                                         customs authorities of the Member State of importation
                                                                                to take into account decisions of the Hungarian courts
                                                                                concerning the validity of the investigations carried
                                                                                out by the authorities of the exporting State into the
An action against the Republic of Finland was brought                           correctness of the EUR.1 certificate in light of the fact
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                      that:
16 January 2004 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by M. Konstantinidis and P. Aalto,                     (a)   the Hungarian authorities duly informed the cus-
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                          toms authorities of the importing State concerning
                                                                                the results of the investigation initially carried
                                                                                out concerning the inaccuracy of certain export
The Commission claims that the Court should:                                          certificates, stressing none the less that the validity
                                                                                of the investigation formed the subject matter of
                                                                                proceedings pending before the Hungarian courts
1.    Declare that the Republic of Finland has failed to enact                        and
      national legislation in a manner ensuring legal certainty
      and clarity as regards the second subparagraph of                         (b) the Hungarian authorities officially communicated
      Article 7(1) of Council Directive 94/62/EC on packaging                         to the customs authorities of the importing State the
      and packaging waste (1) and has failed to ensure that the                       outcome of those proceedings, that is to say the
      above obligation is applied in practice;                                        decisions of the abovementioned courts whereby it
                                                                                was finally ascertained that a number of EUR.1
2.    Order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.                                 certificates were accurate;


title: Case C-233/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Oniors Bio’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Subheadings 1517 90 91 and 1518 00 31 — Mixture of fluid vegetable oil, unprocessed, non-volatile, composed of rapeseed oil (88 %) and sunflower oil (12 %))

text:
               4.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/13

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 28 April 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa — Latvia) — SIA ‘Oniors Bio’ v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests
   (Case C-233/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Subheadings 1517 90 91 and 1518 00 31 - Mixture of fluid vegetable oil, unprocessed, non-volatile, composed of rapeseed oil (88 %) and sunflower oil (12 %)))
   (2016/C 243/12)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SIA ‘Oniors Bio’

      Defendant: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, in the version resulting from Commission Regulation (EU) No 1006/2011 of 27 September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether a mixture of vegetable oils such as that at issue in the main proceedings must be classified as an edible mixture of vegetable oils under CN subheading 1517 90 91 or as an inedible mixture of vegetable oils under CN subheading 1518 00 31, all the factors relevant to the case must be taken into account, in so far as they relate to the objective characteristics and properties inherent in that product. Among the relevant factors which may justify the classification of such a mixture as ‘inedible’, account should be taken of the information provided by the producer of that mixture in the context of the customs declaration, according to which, because of the characteristics of the process for its production, the presence of noxious substances in that mixture cannot be excluded. In that regard, the fact that an analysis of samples taken from such a mixture of vegetable oils has not shown that it contains any noxious substance does not suffice, by itself, to call into question the classification of the mixture in question as ‘inedible’. Such a consequence presupposes the existence of other relevant evidence capable of calling into question the accuracy of the information relating to the process for the production of the mixture in question, provided by its producer and included in that declaration, in accordance with Articles 62, 68 and 71 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 648/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.


title: Case T-187/16: Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO — Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark LITU — Relative ground for refusal — No likelihood of confusion — No similarity between the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               6.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 70/20

         Judgment of the General Court of 25 January 2017 — Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik v EUIPO — Viña y Bodega Botalcura (LITU)
   (Case T-187/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark LITU - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - No similarity between the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 070/28)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG (Erding, Germany) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Viña y Bodega Botalcura SA (Las Condes, Chile)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 9 February 2016 (Case R 719/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik and Viña y Bodega Botalcura.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Anton Riemerschmid Weinbrennerei und Likörfabrik GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

      (1)  OJ C 243, 4.7.2016.


title: Case F-50/07: Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Hristova v Commission

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/36

         Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Hristova v Commission
   (Case F-50/07)
   (2008/C 79/68)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Valentina Hristova, (Pavlikeni, Bulgaria) (represented by: Georgi Kerelov, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Pleas in law and main arguments
   The annulment of the decision of 3 April 2007 of the selection board of the competition EPSO/AST/14/06 not to admit the applicant to the competition and not to mark her practical test because her post-secondary education is not in a field relevant to the duties described in the Notice of competition and she does not have 3 years full-time professional experience in the relevant field after having obtained the secondary education.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claim that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 3 April 2007 of the selection board for competition EPSO/AST/14/06 not to admit her to that competition;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the applicant fixed damages assessed on equitable principles at EUR 28 718 (one year's salary) in respect of the material and non-material damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the illegal decision of the competition selection board, with statutory interest from the date on which the application was lodged;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case F-31/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Pino v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 — Candidate appearing on the reserve list before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 — Loss of promotion points)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/34

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Pino v Commission
   (Case F-31/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 - Candidate appearing on the reserve list before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 - Loss of promotion points)
   2011/C 340/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Marco Pino (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented, initially, by M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, and subsequently by M. Bauer, J. Monteiro and K. Zieleśkiewicz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission decisions appointing the applicants, officials in Category B and successful candidates in an internal competition for change of category, in administrative posts, in so far as they determine the applicants’ grading pursuant to Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, maintain the application to their remuneration of a multiplication factor and reset their promotion points at zero.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

               3.

               The Council of the European Union, which has intervened, is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 131 of 03.06.06, p. 50.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 March 1998 in Case T-183/95: Giuseppe Carraro v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Duty to provide assistance - Decision implicitly rejecting a request)

text:
2.5.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 137/13
result to be achieved, on each Member State to which it is                  Removal from the register of C-261/97 (1)
addressed, Member States are required to observe the time
                                                                                (98/C 137/26)
limits laid down in directives for their transposition. That
time limit expired on 1 July 1994 in respect of Directive
93/18/EEC and on 20 December 1994 in respect of
Directive 94/60/EC without the Italian Republic having             By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
brought into force the necessary provisions in order to            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
comply therewith.                                                  removal from the register of Case C-261/97 (reference for
                                                                   a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Douai): Karl
(1) OJ L 104, 29.4.1993, p. 46.                                    Heinz Baumann v. Urssaf Lille.
(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          4. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                      of 17 March 1998
                                                                   (1) OJ C 333, 9.12.1995.
in Case T-183/95: Giuseppe Carraro v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Article 24 of the Staff Regulations Ð Duty to
provide assistance Ð Decision implicitly rejecting a
                            request)
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (98/C 137/27)
                                                                                of 19 March 1998
                                                                   in Case T-74/96: Georges Tzoanos v. Commission of the
               (Language of the case: Italian)                                       European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Decision ordering removal from post Ð
In Case T-183/95: Giuseppe Carraro, an official of the             Action for annulment Ð Concurrent disciplinary
Commission of the European Communities, assigned to                proceedings and criminal proceedings Ð Errors of
the Joint Research Centre, Ispra, residing at Ispra (Italy),       assessment Ð Right to a fair hearing Ð Articles 12, 13,
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with a right          14, 21 and 86 of the Staff Regulations Ð Principle of
of audience before the Italian Court of Cassation, with an         proportionality Ð Principle of equal treatment Ð Misuse
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                         of powers)
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of                                    (98/C 137/28)
the European Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð
application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission implicitly rejecting the request for assistance                        (Language of the case: French)
submitted by the applicant on 28 July 1994 and, second,
for compensation Ð the Court of First Instance (Third              In Case T-74/96: Georges Tzoanos, a former official of the
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt       Commission of the European Communities, residing in
and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,        Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 March                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1998, in which it:                                                 Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                   Gianluigi Valsesia, Denis Waelbroeck and Olivier
1. annuls the decision of the Commission implicitly                Speltdoorn) Ð application for annulment of the decision
    rejecting the request for assistance submitted by the          of the Commission of 22 June 1995 removing the
    applicant on 28 July 1994;                                     applicant from his post without loss of entitlement to a
                                                                   retirement pension and for annulment of the decision of
                                                                   19 February 1996 expressly rejecting the complaint lodged
2. orders the Commission to pay the applicant the token            by the applicant on 21 September 1995 against the
    sum of ECU 1 by way of compensation for the non-               decision of 22 June 1995 Ð the Court of First Instance
    material damage suffered;                                      (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and
                                                                   K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
3. dismisses the remainder of the action;                          19 March 1998, in which it:


title: Case T-153/08: Action brought on 25 April 2008 — Shenzhen Taiden Industrial v OHIM — Bosch Security Systems (design of communications equipment)

text:
               21.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 158/21

         Action brought on 25 April 2008 — Shenzhen Taiden Industrial v OHIM — Bosch Security Systems (design of communications equipment)
   (Case T-153/08)
   (2008/C 158/35)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Shenzhen Taiden Industrial Co., Ltd (Shenzhen, China) (represented by: M. Hartmann, M. Helmer, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bosch Security Systems BV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 February 2008 in case R 1437/2006-3; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A design for the product ‘communications equipment’ — registered Community design No 214903-0001

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Design produced as evidence by the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: An earlier design made available to the public by Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV registered as an international design under No DM/055655

      Decision of the Invalidity Division: Dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Invalidity Division and declaration that the contested design is invalid

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 as the Third Board of Appeal relied on alleged facts presented by the party requesting the declaration of invalidity for which no evidence was submitted; infringement of Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 as the Third Board of Appeal erred in holding that the contested design lacked individual character and failed to assess and compare the designs at hand from the point of view of an informed user.


title: Case C-126/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 10 March 2010 — FOGGIA — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA v Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 10 March 2010 — FOGGIA — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA v Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais
   (Case C-126/10)
   2010/C 134/37
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: FOGGIA — Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais, SA

      Respondent: Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais

      Intervening Party: Ministério Público

      Questions referred

               (a)

               What are the meaning and effect of Article 11(1)(a) of Directive 90/434/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 and, in particular, what is the meaning of ‘valid commercial reasons’ and ‘restructuring or rationalisation of the activities’ of companies participating in operations covered by Directive 90/434/EEC ?

               (b)

               Is the view taken by the tax authorities, that there are no serious commercial reasons for the acquiring company’s request to transfer tax losses, leading them to conclude that, from the acquiring company’s point of view, there was no apparent commercial interest in acquisition, since the acquired company had developed no activity as a holding company and had no financial holdings, and would consequently transfer only substantial losses, although the merger might represent a positive effect in terms of the cost structure of the group, compatible with that provision of Community law?

      (1)  Article 11(1)(a) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990 L 225, p. 1).


title: Case C-52/13: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Directive 2006/114/EC  — Concepts of ‘misleading advertising’ and ‘comparative advertising’   — National legislation providing that misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising are two separate unlawful acts)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/13

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri
   (Case C-52/13) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2006/114/EC - Concepts of ‘misleading advertising’ and ‘comparative advertising’ - National legislation providing that misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising are two separate unlawful acts))
   2014/C 135/14
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Posteshop SpA — Divisione Franchising Kipoint

      Defendants: Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri

      Interveners: Cg srl, Tacoma srl

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (OJ 2006 L 376, p. 21) — Unfair business practices between traders — Concept of ‘misleading advertising and comparative advertising’ — National legislation which not only prohibits advertising that is at the same time misleading and based on unlawful comparison but also provides that misleading advertising and comparative advertising are two separate offences.

      Operative part of the judgment

   With regard to the protection afforded to traders, Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising is to be interpreted as referring to misleading advertising and unlawful comparative advertising as two independent infringements and to the effect that, in order to prohibit and penalise misleading advertising, it is not necessary that that latter at the same time should constitute unlawful comparative advertising.

      (1)  OJ C 123, 27.4.2013.


title: Case T-418/14: Action brought on 25 May 2014 — Sina Bank v Council

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/40

         Action brought on 25 May 2014 — Sina Bank v Council
   (Case T-418/14)
   2014/C 282/53
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sina Bank (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: B. Mettetal and C. Wucher-North, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council’s decision after review contained in the Notice of 15 March 2014 for the attention of the persons and entities subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) and in Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 (2) concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ C 77, p. 1), which states that Council decision 2010/413/CFSP and Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 continue to affect directly the applicant;

               —

               Annul annex IX Point I.B.8 to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 as it continues to affect directly the applicant as stated in the Notice of 15 March 2014;

               —

               Order the Council to pay, in addition to its own costs, those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council decision after review contained in the Notice of 15 March 2014 has breached the procedural requirements to give adequate reasons and to respect the rights of defence and the right to effective judicial protection.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Bank is not linked to the interest of the ‘Daftar’ and does not contribute to the financing of the state’s so called strategic interests nor its nuclear program. Accordingly, the substantive criteria for designation under the challenged acts are not met in respect of the Bank and/or the Council committed a manifest error of assessment in determining whether or not those criteria were met. The Council also failed to apply the correct test.

      (1)  Council Decision of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ L 195, p. 39)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ L 88, p. 1)


title: Case T-373/12: Order of the General Court of 1 December 2015 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Planet GDZ (PRO PLANET) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Withdrawal of the opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/52

         Order of the General Court of 1 December 2015 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Planet GDZ (PRO PLANET)
   (Case T-373/12) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))
   (2016/C 038/68)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented initially by M. Kinkeldey and A. Bognár, and subsequently by M. Kinkeldey and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Planet GDZ AG (Tagelswangen, Switzerland) (represented initially by M. Nentwig and G.M. Becker, and subsequently by M. Nentwig, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 June 2012 (Case R 1350/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Planet GDZ AG and REWE-Zentral AG.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

               2.

               REWE-Zentral and Planet GDZ AG are ordered to bear their own costs and are each ordered to pay half of the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012.


title: Case C-495/15 P: Appeal brought on 21 September 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-314/13 Portugal v Commission

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/17

         Appeal brought on 21 September 2015 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 July 2015 in Case T-314/13 Portugal v Commission
   (Case C-495/15 P)
   (2015/C 371/20)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Recchia and P. Guerra e Andrade, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015, delivered in Case T-314/13;

               —

               refer the case back to the General Court for further adjudication;

               —

               order the Portuguese State to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Pleas in law: — The Commission submits, primarily, that the General Court erred in law in holding that the Commission must adopt the decision on financial corrections in the framework of the Cohesion Fund within the time limit prescribed by the basic legislative provision from the date on which the Member State was heard.
   In the alternative, the Commission submits that the General Court erred in law in holding that the time limit for the Commission to adopt the decision on financial corrections is mandatory, failure to comply with which constitutes a material infringement, thus invalidating a decision adopted out of time.

      Main arguments — The Commission submits, primarily, that, in the present case, Article 100 of Regulation No 1083/2006 (1) did not apply, but that Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94 (2) did apply. In the Commission’s opinion, the General Court’s interpretation of Article 108 of Regulation No 1083/2006 is wrong. Article 108 applies only to co-financed projects, approved in accordance with the new rules (period 2007 to 2013). In the present case, by virtue of Article 105 of Regulation No 1083/2006, the applicable provision was Article H(2) of Annex II to Regulation No 1164/94. In the Commission’s opinion, Regulation No 1164/94 makes no provision for a time limit within which the Commission must take the decision on financial corrections.
   In the alternative, the Commission submits that the EU legislature did not lay down any mandatory time limit within which the Commission must adopt decisions on financial corrections. The essential purpose of a decision on financial corrections concerns the protection of the European Union’s financial interests. The legislation does not make provision for any penalty or any consequence in connection with the failure to observe the time limit. Thus, the time limit for taking a decision on financial corrections is sequential in nature.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (OJ 2006 L 210 p. 25).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1164/94 of 16 May 1994 establishing a Cohesion Fund (OJ 1994 L 130, 25.5., p. 1).


title: Case T-535/15: Action brought on 15 September 2015 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID)

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/39

         Action brought on 15 September 2015 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID)
   (Case T-535/15)
   (2015/C 371/40)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zürich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken, J. Bärenfänger, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ÏD Group (Roubaix, France)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Fashion ID’ — Application for registration No 10 638 658

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2015 in Case R 2470/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision as far as it upheld the decision of the Opposition Division to reject the CTM No 10 638 658 with regard to the opposed goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 18, 25 and 35;

               —

               annul the corresponding decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 July 2014 (Case B 2 038 399) as far as the Opposition Division upheld the opposition to reject the CTM No 10 638 658;

               —

               dismiss the Opposition dated 26 June 2012 against the CTM No 10 638 658 in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea(s) in law

               —

               The Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal failed to regard the long-standing case law of the General Court and of the Court of Justice according to which the overall impression of signs has to be compared, focusing on the contested CTM as a whole, instead of a comparison of single elements.


title: Case C-118/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 18 March 2008 — Transportes Urbanos y Servicios Generales, SAL v Administración del Estado

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) lodged on 18 March 2008 — Transportes Urbanos y Servicios Generales, SAL v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-118/08)
   (2008/C 128/44)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Supremo
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Transportes Urbanos y Servicios Generales, SAL

      Defendant: Administración del Estado
   Question referred
   Is it contrary to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness to apply differing case-law of the Tribunal Supremo of the Kingdom of Spain in the judgments of 29 January 2004 and 24 May 2005 to actions for financial liability against the State qua legislature in respect of administrative acts adopted pursuant to a law which has been declared unconstitutional and to such actions in respect of administrative acts adopted pursuant to a measure which has been held to be contrary to Community law?


C 118/30              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                21.4.2001
       Removal from the register of Case C-368/99 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-343/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/82)                                                       (2001/C 118/85)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-368/99: [reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-343/00: Commission of the
ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: La Che-          European Communities v France.
mise Lacoste S.A. v Coalle FA-93.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 335 of 25.11.2000.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-126/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-378/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/83)                                                       (2001/C 118/86)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 23 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-126/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-378/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Portugal.                                      European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.                                            (1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
       Removal from the register of Case C-402/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-335/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/84)                                                       (2001/C 118/87)
By order of 17 January 2001 the President of the Court of             By order of 25 January 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-402/00: (reference for a preliminary      from the register of Case C-335/00: Commission of the
ruling from the Employment Tribunal, Stratford): F. Harding v         European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Skandia Asset Management Ltd.
(1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000.                                           (1) OJ C 316 of 4.11.2000.


title: Case C-159/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2012 — Alessandra Venturini v A.S.L. Varese and Others

text:
               2.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 157/5

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 2 April 2012 — Alessandra Venturini v A.S.L. Varese and Others
   (Case C-159/12)
   2012/C 157/07
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Alessandra Venturini

      Defendants: ASL Varese and Others

      Question referred

   Do the principles of freedom of establishment, non-discrimination and the preservation of competition under Article 49 et seq TFEU preclude national legislation which does not allow a pharmacist, who is qualified and entered in the relevant professional register but does not own a pharmacy on the ‘pianta organica’ [territorial grid], also to offer for retail sale, in the para-pharmacy owned by that pharmacist, pharmaceutical products which are subject to a prescription in the form of a ‘ricetta bianca’ — that is to say, pharmaceutical products the cost of which is borne not by the [national health service] but wholly by the citizen — and which accordingly also establishes in that sector a prohibition on the sale of certain categories of pharmaceutical product, as well as a quota in relation to the number of commercial outlets which may be established in the national territory?


title: Case C-609/15: Order of the President of the Court of 2 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Letrado de la Administración de Justicia del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa — Spain) — María Assumpció Martínez Roges v José Antonio García Sánchez

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Letrado de la Administración de Justicia del Juzgado de Violencia sobre la Mujer Único de Terrassa — Spain) — María Assumpció Martínez Roges v José Antonio García Sánchez
   (Case C-609/15) (1)

   (2017/C 283/39)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case C-41/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 January 2013 — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Holland-Noord/kantoor Zaandam v MSA International Holdings BV, MSA Nederland BV

text:
               27.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 123/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam (Netherlands) lodged on 25 January 2013 — Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Holland-Noord/kantoor Zaandam v MSA International Holdings BV, MSA Nederland BV
   (Case C-41/13)
   2013/C 123/13
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Holland-Noord/kantoor Zaandam

      Respondents: MSA International Holdings BV, MSA Nederland BV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does denying the respondents the possibility of having the Netherlands fiscal unity regime applied to the activities and the assets of the sub-subsidiary/respondent [MSA Nederland], established in the Netherlands, constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment within the meaning of Article 43 EC in conjunction with Article 48 EC?
               In that context, in the light of the objectives pursued by the Netherlands fiscal unity regime …, is the situation of the sub-subsidiary/respondent [MSA Nederland] objectively comparable … to (i) the situation of a company established in the Netherlands which is a subsidiary of an intermediate holding company established in the Netherlands which has not elected to be integrated in a fiscal unity with its parent company established in the Netherlands and which therefore, as a sub-subsidiary, similarly to [the] respondent [MSA Nederland], has no access to the fiscal unity regime with — exclusively — its grandparent company, or to (ii) the situation of a sub-subsidiary established in the Netherlands which, with its parent company/intermediate holding company established in the Netherlands, has elected to form a fiscal unity with [its] (grand)parent company established in the Netherlands and whose activities and assets therefore, in contrast to those of [the] respondent [MSA Nederland], are consolidated for tax purposes?

               2.

               In answering the first sentence of Question 1, does it still make a difference … whether the foreign intermediate holding company concerned, if it does not operate in the Netherlands through a subsidiary but through a permanent establishment, had been able to elect — as regards the assets and the activities of that Netherlands permanent establishment — to form a fiscal unity with its parent company established in the Netherlands?

               3.

               If and to the extent that the first sentence of Question 1 must be answered in the affirmative, can such a restriction then be justified by overriding reasons in the general interest, more particularly by the need to preserve tax consistency, including the prevention of the unilateral and bilateral double use of losses …?

               4.

               If and to the extent that Question 3 must be answered in the affirmative, should such a restriction then be considered to be proportionate …?


title: Case T-467/13: Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Arrow Group and Arrow Generics v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram — Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ — Potential competition — Generic medicinal products — Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents — Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking — Fines — Legal certainty — Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis — Duration of the Commission’s investigation — Rights of the defence — Single and continuous infringement)

text:
               17.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 383/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2016 — Arrow Group and Arrow Generics v Commission
   (Case T-467/13) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for antidepressant medicinal products containing the active pharmaceutical ingredient citalopram - Concept of restriction of competition ‘by object’ - Potential competition - Generic medicinal products - Barriers to market entry resulting from the existence of patents - Agreements concluded between a patent holder and a generic undertaking - Fines - Legal certainty - Principle that penalties must have a proper legal basis - Duration of the Commission’s investigation - Rights of the defence - Single and continuous infringement))
   (2016/C 383/14)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Arrow Group ApS (Roskilde, Denmark) and Arrow Generics Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S.D. Kon, C. Firth and C. Humpe, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: F. Castilla Contreras and B. Mongin, acting as Agents, and by G. Peretz, Barrister)

      Re:

   Application for annulment in part of Commission Decision C(2013) 3803 final of 19 June 2013 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39226 — Lundbeck) and for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Arrow Group ApS and Arrow Generics Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 313, 26.10.2013.


title: Case C-645/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2011 — Land Berlin v Ellen Mirjam Sapir and Others

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 16 December 2011 — Land Berlin v Ellen Mirjam Sapir and Others
   (Case C-645/11)
   2012/C 80/14
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Land Berlin

      Defendants: Ellen Mirjam Sapir, Michael J. Busse, Mirjam M. Birgansky, Gideon Rumney, Benjamin Ben-Zadok, Hedda Brown

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a claim for the repayment of an amount unduly paid constitute a civil matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) in the circumstances where a Land ordered by a public authority to pay to victims by way of compensation part of the proceeds from a sale of land instead, erroneously, pays to those parties the entire purchase price?

               2.

               Can claims be regarded as so closely connected as required pursuant to Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 where the defendants rely on additional compensation claims susceptible only to uniform determination?

               3.

               Does Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 apply also to defendants not domiciled in the European Union? If that question is answered in the affirmative, does this also apply where, in the defendant’s State of domicile, pursuant to a bilateral convention with the State determining the claim, recognition of the judgment might be refused for lack of jurisdiction?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).


title: Case C-376/99: Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 6/10                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.1.2000
     of the Directive, even adopting draft directives in that field    — infringement of Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No
     which it communicated to the Member States. The sudden                 729/70 (2), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 (3);
     change of mind by the Commission, now considering that
     compensation schemes for non-commercial prices and the            — overstepping by the Commission of the limits of its
     ‘sistemas insulares y extrapeninsulares’ in the electricity            discretion;
     sector cannot fall within the scope of Article 24 because
     they do not involve formal derogations from the obli-             — defective or no statement of grounds;
     gations imposed by the Directive, damages the expectations
     of both Spain and the economic operators which the
                                                                       — infringement of an essential procedural requirement for
     Commission itself had raised.
                                                                            imposing the corrections;
— Breach of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.                — infringement/misinterpretation of Article 12(6) of Regu-
                                                                            lation (EEC) No 2677/85; (4)
                                                                       — lack of competence ratione temporis for the Commission
(1) OJ No L 27, p. 20 of 30.1.1997.
                                                                            to impose penalties.
                                                                       ( 1) Decision 99/596/EC, OJ No L 226, 27.8.1999, p. 26.
                                                                       ( 2) OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218.
                                                                       ( 3) OJ No L 125, 8.6.1995, p. 1.
                                                                       ( 4) OJ No L 254, 25.9.1985, p. 5.
Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the Hellenic
Republic against the Commission of the European Com-
                             munities
                         (Case C-373/99)                               Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the Federal
                                                                       Republic of Germany against the Commission of the
                          (2000/C 6/19)                                                      European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                         (Case C-376/99)
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 7 October 1999 by the Hellenic Republic,                                             (2000/C 6/20)
represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, Legal Adviser in the State
Legal Service, and Ioannis-Konstantinos Khalkias, Member of
that Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Greek Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix.                                   ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                       Communities on 7 October 1999 by the Federal Republic of
                                                                       Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat in
The applicant claims that the Court should: annul or, in the           the Federal Ministry of Financial Affairs, 108 Graurheindorfer
alternative, amend Commission Decision C (1999) 2476 of                Straße, D-53117 Bonn, and Holger-Friedrich Wissel, Rechtsan-
28 July 1999 amending Decision 99/187/EC on the clearance              walt, c/o Pünder, Volhard, Weber & Axster, 6 Cecilienallee,
of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of           D-40474 Düsseldorf.
the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
(EAGGF) (1), as regards the chapters thereof specifically contest-
ed, which concern the financial corrections to fruit and
                                                                       1. Annul the Commission decision of 8 July 1999 concerning
vegetables, to arable crops, to the 2 % deduction for adminis-
                                                                            a measure taken by the Federal Republic of Germany in
trative expenditure, to cotton and to olive oil.
                                                                            favour of Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale, refer-
                                                                            ence COM (1999) 2265 fin., notified on 4 August 1999;
Grounds for annulment and main arguments                               2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
The main grounds for annulment advanced by the Hellenic                Pleas in law and main arguments
Republic are as follows:
                                                                       — Irregular composition of the Commission [see Case
— incorrect assessment by the Commission of the facts;                      C-334/99 (1)].
 ---pagebreak--- 8.1.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 6/11
— Infringement of the right to a fair hearing: The Com-                 Action brought on 7 October 1999 by the Commission
    mission, even despite having promised in the meantime to            of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
    do so, did not make it possible for the applicant to                                            lic of Germany
    comment on a report on which the decision is essentially
    based. Documents which had been transmitted to the
    Commission by the Bundesverband deutscher Banken were                                          (Case C-378/99)
    also not made .available to the applicant.
                                                                                (2000/C 6/21)
— Defective statement of reasons: The Commission’s sources
    of information have not been sufficiently explained; in
    particular, only isolated statements from the report used
    by the Commission are adduced and not their overall                 An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
    context. Finally, the Commission relies on its own relevant         brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
    experience, without really possessing any such experience.          ties on 7 October 1999 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser,
                                                                        and Gerald Braun, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with
— Infringement of the Treaty or of a legal provision to be              an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
    applied in its implementation: The Commission applied               Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254,
    the concept of aid incorrectly and thus infringed Article           Kirchberg.
    87 EC. The incorporation of the Wohnungsbauförderungs-
    anstalt des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (Wfa) into the
    Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale (WestLB) does not              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    constitute aid. The payment of 1,1 % before tax or 0,6 %
    after tax payable annually by WestLB to the Land of
    Nordrhein-Westfalen is reasonable. The relevant principle           (1) declare that, by failing by the due date to adopt all
    of the investor of capital operating in market-economy
                                                                             the legislative, regulatory and administrative measures
    conditions has been applied, in the case-law to date of the
                                                                             necessary in order to transpose into national law Council
    Court of Justice, exclusively to cases of reorganisation                 Directive 96/53/EEC (1) of 25 July 1996 laying down for
    and restructuring. Since WestLB is a sound undertaking
                                                                             certain road vehicles circulating within the Community
    operating at a profit, it is doubtful whether the principle
                                                                             the maximum authorized dimensions in national and
    of the capital investor in market-economy conditions is                  international traffic and the maximum authorized weights
    applicable at all in the present case. Even supposing that it
                                                                             in international traffic, the Federal Republic of Germany
    is applicable, the Commission’s decision is defective factu-
                                                                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
    ally and legally, since it contradicts the criteria which
    according to the Court’s case-law make up the principle of
    the capital investor acting in market-economy conditions.
    By fastening on average return, the Commission excludes             (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
    the wide spectrum of other legitimate motives, common
    in practice, of a public and/or private investor in making
    an investment. Contrary to previous practice and the
    case-law of the Court, the Commission thus places itself in         Pleas in law and main arguments
    the position of a private investor and sets itself up as a
    planning authority which fixes investments from public
    funds at a defined expected return and thereby deprives
    public investors of the possibility of behaving like a private      The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
    investor in the market. Moreover, the principle of the              of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC
    capital investor acting in market-economy conditions                is such as to oblige Member States to which directives are
    may not — as happened here — be applied without                     addressed to adopt the measures necessary in order fully to
    modification to the present investment in a profitable              transpose those directives into national law before the expir-
    undertaking. The contested decision is also defective               ation of the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit
    factually. The expected return of ‘12 % after tax’ on which         laid down in Article 11 of the directive expired on 17 Septem-
    the decision is based is incorrect. It has no factual basis         ber 1997 but Germany has not yet adopted all the necessary
    whatever. Finally, there is also no distortion of competition       measures.
    and no adverse affect on trade between States.
(1) OJ No C 366 of 18.12.1999, p. 14.                                   (1) OJ L 235 of 17.9.1996, p. 59.


title: Joined Cases C-501/12 to C-506/12, C-540/12 and C-541/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Thomas Specht (C-501/12), Jens Schombera (C-502/12), Alexander Wieland (C-503/12), Uwe Schönefeld (C-504/12), Antje Wilke (C-505/12), Gerd Schini (C-506/12), Rena Schmeel (C-540/12), Ralf Schuster (C-541/12) v Land Berlin, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000/78/EC — Equal treatment ‘in employment and occupation’  — Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) — Direct discrimination on grounds of age — Basic pay for civil servants dependent upon age — Transitional system — Perpetuation of the difference in treatment — Justifications — Right to compensation — Liability of the Member State — Principles of equivalence and of effectiveness)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/4

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin — Germany) — Thomas Specht (C-501/12), Jens Schombera (C-502/12), Alexander Wieland (C-503/12), Uwe Schönefeld (C-504/12), Antje Wilke (C-505/12), Gerd Schini (C-506/12), Rena Schmeel (C-540/12), Ralf Schuster (C-541/12) v Land Berlin, Bundesrepublik Deutschland
   (Joined Cases C-501/12 to C-506/12, C-540/12 and C-541/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment ‘in employment and occupation’ - Articles 2, 3(1)(c) and 6(1) - Direct discrimination on grounds of age - Basic pay for civil servants dependent upon age - Transitional system - Perpetuation of the difference in treatment - Justifications - Right to compensation - Liability of the Member State - Principles of equivalence and of effectiveness))
   2014/C 282/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Thomas Specht (C-501/12), Jens Schombera (C-502/12), Alexander Wieland (C-503/12), Uwe Schönefeld (C-504/12), Antje Wilke (C-505/12), Gerd Schini (C-506/12), Rena Schmeel (C-540/12), Ralf Schuster (C-541/12)

      Defendants: Land Berlin, Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Article 3(1)(c) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that pay conditions for civil servants fall within the scope of that directive.

               2)

               Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, within each service grade, the step determining basic pay is to be allocated, at the time of recruitment, on the basis of the civil servant’s age.

               3)

               Articles 2 and 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding domestic legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, laying down the detailed rules governing the reclassification within a new remuneration system of civil servants who were established before that legislation entered into force, under which the pay step that they are now allocated is to be determined solely on the basis of the amount received by way of basic pay under the old system, notwithstanding the fact that that amount depended on discrimination based on the civil servant’s age, and advancement to the next step is now to depend exclusively on the experience acquired after that legislation entered into force.

               4)

               In circumstances such as those of the cases before the referring court, EU law — and, in particular, Article 17 of Directive 2000/78 — does not require civil servants who have been discriminated against to be retrospectively granted an amount equal to the difference between the pay actually received and that corresponding to the highest step in their grade;
               It is for the referring court to ascertain whether all the conditions, laid down by the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, are met for the Federal Republic of Germany to have incurred liability under EU law.

               5)

               EU law does not preclude a national rule, like the rule at issue in the main proceedings, which requires the civil servant to take steps, within relatively narrow time-limits — that is to say, before the end of the financial year then in course — to assert a claim to financial payments that do not arise directly from the law, where that rule does not conflict with the principle of equivalence or the principle of effectiveness. It is for the referring court to determine whether those conditions are satisfied in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.

      OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


title: Case C-374/11: Action brought on 13 July 2011 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/13

         Action brought on 13 July 2011 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-374/11)
   2011/C 282/24
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, I. Hadjiyiannis, A. Marghelis, agents)

      Defendant: Ireland

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of this Court in Case C-188/08 Commission v Ireland, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations wider Article 260 TFEU;

               —

               order Ireland to pay to the Commission a lump sum of EUR 4 771,20 multiplied by the number of days between the judgment in Case C-188/08 and the judgment in the present proceedings (or full compliance by Ireland with the judgment in Case C-188/08 if that should be achieved during the pendency of these proceedings);

               —

               order Ireland to pay to the Commission a daily penalty payment of EUR 26 173,44 from the date of the judgment in the present proceedings to the date of compliance by Ireland with the judgment in Case C-188/08; and

               —

               order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   More than one and a half years have elapsed since the Court’s judgment in Case C-188/08. The Commission considers that this should have been sufficient time for Ireland to comply with the judgment of the Court. It notes, indeed, that Ireland announced that it intended to have the required legislation adopted by the end of 2010. However that goal has not been respected and Ireland does not appear to be close to achieving full compliance. Accordingly, the Commission considers that Ireland has failed to satisfy its obligation under Article 260(1) TFEU.


title: Appeal brought on 15 July 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-165/95 between Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-257/98 P)

text:
5.9.98                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 278/25
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Santiago Ortiz                           Action brought on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an                        European Communities against the French Republic
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish                                                   (Case C-256/98)
Embassy, 4Ð6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
                                                                                (98/C 278/45)
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                          15 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Ð annul Commission Decision 98/324/EC (1) on the
                                                                          Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
     clearance of the accounts in respect of the expenditure
                                                                          Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a national
     for 1997 of the Guarantee Section of the European
                                                                          civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, as regards
                                                                          Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     the financial adjustment imposed on Spain, and
                                                                          office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                          that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          Ð declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative measures necessary in
Ð Infringement of essential procedural requirements and                        order to comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
     lack of a statement of reasons:                                           21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
                                                                               and of wild fauna and flora (1), in that it has omitted
                                                                               to take the measures necessary in order to comply
     The contested Decision cannot incorporate a financial                     with Article 6 of that Directive, the French Republic
     adjustment since it was issued at the stage of clearance                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive
     of accounts (Article 5(2)(b) of Council Regulation                        and under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the
     (EEC) No 729/70 (2) and not at the stage of                               EC Treaty,
     verification of compliance (Article 5(2)(c) of
     Regulation (EEC) No 729/70). Only at the latter stage                Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     is it appropriate to verify whether the expenditure
     incurred is in conformity with the Community
     provisions. Any financial adjustment made otherwise                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     than in connection with the clearance of accounts
     which is a preliminary to it is void through failure to
     follow the correct clearance procedure laid down in                  The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
     Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (3).                           those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit prescribed by
     Moreover, although the Kingdom of Spain has learned                  Article 23 of the Directive for its transposition expired on
     why the Commission doubted the correctness of a                      5 June 1994.
     particular budgetary item, it has been unable to
     ascertain why the Commission rejected the                            (1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
     explanations offered by the Kingdom of Spain.                        (2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.
Ð Infringement of the applicable Community law:
     The calculation made by the Spanish authorities is                   Appeal brought on 15 July 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni
     correct and is in conformity with the applicable                     against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by
     Council Regulation (EC) No 150/95 (4) and                            the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
     Commission Regulations (EC) No 157/95 (5) and (EC)                   the European Communities in Case T-165/95 between
     No 158/95 (6).                                                       Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
(1 ) OJ L 141, 13.5.1998, p. 38.                                                                  (Case C-257/98 P)
(2 ) Official Journal, English special Edition 1970 I, p. 218.
(3 ) OJ L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6.
                                                                                (98/C 278/46)
(4 ) OJ L 22, 31.1.1995, p. 1.
(5 ) OJ L 24, 1.2.1995, p. 1.
(6 ) OJ L 24, 1.2.1995, p. 4.                                             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
                                                                          1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities in Case T-165/95
                                                                          between Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 278/26             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.9.98
European Communities was brought before the Court                       placed in the institution and, as was argued at the oral
of Justice of the European Communities on 15 July                       hearing, the prejudice caused to the appellant's sexual
1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni, represented by Georges                      circumstances and to his enjoyment of life. That
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and O. Eben, of the Brussels                   damage is unconnected with the compensation for
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   physical defects' which is covered by Article 14 of the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 30 rue de Cessange.                        Rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of
                                                                        accident and of occupational disease.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð The Court of First Instance took it upon itself, without
Ð set aside the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998
                                                                        stating any appropriate reasons therefor, to include the
    by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        material and non-material loss suffered by the
    Communities in Case T-165/95 (1), in which it rejected
                                                                        appellant in the capital sum paid to him under the
    the appellant's claims as to their substance,
                                                                        social security scheme of Community officials.
Ð consequently, allow the claims advanced by the
    appellant in the proceedings at first instance, apart           Ð The Court of First Instance failed to penalise the delay
    from his application for compensation for material                  in dealing with the matter by awarding default
    damage in the sum of BEF 12 500 000 corresponding                   interest.
    to the material loss arising from certain sales of
    immovable property,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 37.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of Community law.
                                                                    Action brought on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Ð Although the Court of First Instance acknowledged                 European Communities against the Federal Republic of
    that a compensation scheme based on the ordinary                                            Germany
    law relating to liability may coexist with the scheme
                                                                                (Case C-259/98)
    recognised by the Staff Regulations of officials of the
    European Communities, providing for the award of                                        (98/C 278/47)
    lump-sum compensation by the social security system,
    it omitted to consider the factors giving rise to liability
    under the ordinary law, as incurred by the
                                                                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
    Commission, namely: fault, damage and the
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    relationship of cause and effect existing as between the
                                                                    Communities on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the
    fault and the damage.
                                                                    European Communities, represented by Michael Niejahr
                                                                    and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, with an address
Ð The Court of First Instance failed to carry out a                 for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
    correct assessment of the material and non-material             Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
    damage suffered by the appellant.
    Contrary to the findings of the Court of First Instance,        The applicant claims that the Court should:
    the lump-sum capital amount which is guaranteed by
    the Staff Regulations and paid under the insurance
    scheme entered into by the Commission Ð to which                Ð declare that, by imposing, for Community nationals
    officials pay contributions Ð cannot include                        who hold a diploma not obtained in Germany
    compensation for material damage equivalent to the                  qualifying them to carry on the profession of dental
    difference between an invalidity pension and the salary             practitioner in accordance with Council Directives 78/
    of an official.                                                     686/EEC (1) and 78/687/EEC (2), an obligatory
                                                                        introductory course as a specific requirement in order
    The non-material damage pleaded by the appellant                    for them to become eligible for appointment as a
    concerns all of the following: the physical and                     dental practitioner of a social security scheme
    professional damage suffered by him, the daily distress             practising independently in Germany, the Federal
    arising from his having had to work for 20 years in an              Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
    environment which was dangerous to his health and                   under those Directives, in particular under Article 20
    resulting from his illness and future developments                  of Directive 78/686/EEC and Article 5 of Directive 78/
    relating thereto (recurrence and premature death), his              687/EEC,
    physical sufferings due to the illness and the
    consequences of surgical operations, the absence of
    any acknowledgement by the Commission of its                    Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
    liability and its failure to have regard to the trust               costs.


title: Case T-525/15: Action brought on 07 September 2015 — Petro Suisse Intertrade/Council

text:
               9.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/35

         Action brought on 07 September 2015 — Petro Suisse Intertrade/Council
   (Case T-525/15)
   (2015/C 371/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Petro Suisse Intertrade Co. SA (Pully, Suisse) (represented by: J. Grayston, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey, and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1008 of 25 June 2015 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 161, p. 19) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1001 of 25 June 2015 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2015 L 161, p. 1), insofar as these acts include the applicant in the category of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures,

               —

               annul the Council Decision contained in the letter of 26 June 2015, addressed to the lawyers of the applicant, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Decision 2010/413/CFSP and Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, in so far as this decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures,

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an insufficient statement of reasons

                           —

                           The decision of 26 June 2015 (the ‘contested review decision’) also served as the letter of notification for the Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1008 and the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1001 (the ‘contested acts’), but no statement of reasons is given in the letter for the adoption of the contested acts.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a manifest error of assessment

                           —

                           Although owned by NIOC, the applicant constitutes a separate legal entity that is established in Switzerland and operates legitimately as a local service company with a very limited turnover.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the rights of defence

                           —

                           By allowing a single unidentified Member State in effect to direct the Council to take a decision without examination of any relevant documents or evidence in support, the Council has unilaterally introduced a new decision making procedure that has no legal basis in Article 215 TFEU or elsewhere in the Treaties. This way of proceeding disrupts the balance between the investigating and decision making powers of the Council and the right of judicial protection of the applicant.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a breach of fundamental right to property

                           —

                           The Council has not in any substantial manner provided reasons for the restrictions imposed on the applicant. The listing of the applicant, a Swiss company with limited activities as a local service company, cannot in any way contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, and the Council can provide no evidence to the contrary.


title: Case C-559/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Recognition and enforcement of provisional and protective measures — Concept of ‘public policy’)

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 May 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Augstākās tiesas — Latvia) — Rūdolfs Meroni v Recoletos Limited
   (Case C-559/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Recognition and enforcement of provisional and protective measures - Concept of ‘public policy’))
   (2016/C 260/05)
   Language of the case: Latvian

      Referring court

   Augstākās tiesas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rūdolfs Meroni

      Defendant: Recoletos Limited

      Third parties: Aivars Lembergs, Olafs Berķis, Igors Skoks, Genādijs Ševcovs

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 34(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, considered in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the recognition and enforcement of an order issued by a court of a Member State, without a prior hearing of a third person whose rights may be affected by that order, cannot be regarded as manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which enforcement is sought or manifestly contrary to the right to a fair trial within the meaning of those provisions, in so far as that third person is entitled to assert his rights before that court.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Case C-74/06: Action brought on  8 February 2006  — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               6.5.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/2

         Action brought on 8 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-74/06)
   (2006/C 108/02)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafillou, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant asks the Court:

               —

               to declare that, by applying only a single criterion, for the purpose of determining the taxable value of used cars imported into Greek territory from another Member State, as regards depreciation, based solely on the age of the vehicle — in accordance with which a reduction of 7 % is allowed for cars from six months to one year old or 14 % for cars over one year old — which does not ensure that the tax due does not exceed, even in certain cases, the amount of the residual tax which has been incorporated in the value of similar used vehicles which have already been registered in that State, while the basis for calculating depreciation is not made known to the public and examination of the cars by experts is subject to the payment of a fee of EUR 300, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 90 of the EC Treaty;

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               The fixed scale of depreciation applied by the Hellenic Republic to imported used cars does not reflect, with the precision required by the case-law, their actual depreciation and, consequently, it does not ensure that the registration tax due does not exceed, even in certain cases, the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the value of similar used cars which have already been registered in Greece.

               2.

               The procedure before the commission hearing objections is not sufficient to remedy the defects in that basic system, it requires a deterrent payment of a significant fee and is not accompanied by publication of the criteria to be taken into account when determining the value of used cars, rendering that procedure ineffective.