title: Case C-194/09 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2009 by Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2009 in Case T-332/06: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/8

         Appeal brought on 1 June 2009 by Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2009 in Case T-332/06: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-194/09 P)
   2009/C 193/09
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl (represented by: Messrs M. Siragusa, T. Müller-Ibold, T. Graf, F. Salerno, attorneys-at-law)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009, in case T-332/06, Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl vs. Commission of the European Communities,

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2006/C 214/03 notifed to the Italian Republic on 19 July 2006, insofar as it concerns the electricity tariffs applicable to the aluminium plants owned by Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl.

         Alternatively,

               —

               Remand the case to the CFI for reconsideration in accordance with the Court's judgment.

         And in either case,

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the Appellant's legal fees and expenses in accordance with Article 69 of the Court's Rules of Procedure, including reimbursement of the sums paid to the Commission as expenses incurred in connection with the proceedings in first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Given the Commission's past finding that the electricity tariffs applicable to energy intensive industries in Italy did not constitute a state aid, the question arises as to what standard of investigation and reasoning the Commission should apply in such circumstances before opening formal proceedings. Alcoa submits that in a situation where the Commission has previously found that a measure does not constitute aid, the Commission cannot open such proceedings unless it has first conducted a comprehensive preliminary investigation in order to substantiate why the previous finding no longer holds. In addition the Commission must set out its reasons sufficiently clearly in its decision to open formal proceedings. Alcoa submits that the CFI erred in law in holding that the Commission could open formal proceedings without examining whether the original analysis of the 1996 decision had become invalid. The Commission's past finding that the measure did not constitute aid also raises the question of what procedure should apply in the event that the Commission decides to revisit the matter and to open formal proceedings against the measure in question. It follows both from the applicable procedural rules and the fundamental principles of legal certainty as well as from the protection of legitimate expectations that in such circumstances the procedure for investigating existing aid must apply. It is submitted that the CFI erred in law in holding that the Commission's reliance on the procedure for new aid in investigating Alcoa's tariffs was correct.


title: Judgment of the Court of 27 June 2014 in Case E-26/13 — The Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson (Free movement of persons — Article 28 EEA — Directive 2004/38/EC — Directive 90/365/EEC — Right of residence — Right to move from the home State — Less favourable tax treatment)

text:
               26.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/3

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 27 June 2014
   in Case E-26/13
   The Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson
   (Free movement of persons — Article 28 EEA — Directive 2004/38/EC — Directive 90/365/EEC — Right of residence — Right to move from the home State — Less favourable tax treatment)
   (2015/C 68/03)
   In Case E-26/13, The Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from the Supreme Court of Iceland (Hæstiréttur Íslands) concerning the interpretation of Article 28 of the EEA Agreement and Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 27 June 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   It is not compatible with Article 1 of Directive 90/365/EEC and Article 7(1)(b) and (d) of Directive 2004/38/EC that an EEA State does not give spouses who have moved to another EEA State the option of pooling their personal tax credits in connection with the assessment of income tax, whereas they would be entitled to pool their personal tax credits if they lived in the home State, in a situation where one of them receives a pension from the home State, and that pension constitutes all or nearly all of that person’s income, while the other spouse has no income.


title: Case T-214/10: Action brought on 7 May 2010 — Moselland v OHIM — Renta Siete (DIVINUS)

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/23

         Action brought on 7 May 2010 — Moselland v OHIM — Renta Siete (DIVINUS)
   (Case T-214/10)
   2010/C 195/37
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Moselland eG — Winzergenossenschaft (Bernkastel-Kues, Germany) (represented by: M. Dippelhofer, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Renta Siete, SL (Albacete, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 22 February 2010 in Case R 1204/2009-2;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred during the appeal proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Renta Siete, SL

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘DIVINUS’ for goods and services in classes 30, 33 and 35.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Moselland eG

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: a national figurative mark, which includes the verbal elements ‘Moselland Divinum’, for goods in class 33.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law:

   Infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), and Rule 19(2) und Rule 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2), as the Board of Appeal has not correctly and/or sufficiently addressed the substantiation of earlier rights, infringement of Article 76(1)(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not confine itself to relying on the evidence submitted by the applicant, infringement of Article 78(1),(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 for incorrect evaluation of evidence and, as the Board of Appeal merely relied on a request for information despite having had evidence contrary to the information received already submitted to it, also infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to grant the applicant the opportunity to make known its views on the factual information gathered by OHIM, infringement of Rule 50(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly did not consider the presentation of an acknowledgement of receipt as sufficient evidence of submission of documents within the prescribed time-limit, infringement of Rule 50(1)(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 for misuse of power and finally infringement of Rule 51(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal erred in not reimbursing the fee for appeal.

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

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).


title: Case T-212/00: Action brought on 11 August 2000 by Nuove Industrie Molisane s.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.10.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 302/31
      For the Bureau of the European Parliament now to apply             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
      in respect of the applicant the ‘Rules’ of 16 December             put forward by Biret International in Case T-174/00.
      1998 is tantamount to an attempt to alter twelve years
      after their implementation the rules and conditions
      applicable to the competition on the basis of which the
      applicant was recruited to carry out (specifically) the
      duties of Head of the Information Service in Lisbon. By
      doing so, the principle of the non-retroactivity of laws
      has been breached.
                                                                         Action brought on 11 August 2000 by Nuove Industrie
                                                                         Molisane s.r.l. against the Commission of the European
—     Breaches the principle of legality
                                                                                Communities
      Adoption of rules with the scope of the ‘Rules on the
      implementation of the mobility policy’ amounts to a                                          (Case T-212/00)
      veritable amendment of the Staff Regulations which
      exceeds the powers of the Parliament to define and                                          (2000/C 302/73)
      implement its staff policy under the provisions of the
      Staff Regulations.
                                                                                (Language of the Case: Italian)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 11 August 2000 by Nuove Indus-
                                                                         trie Molisane s.r.l., represented by Ivo Van Bael, of the Brussels
                                                                         Bar, and Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the Rome Bar.
Action brought on 10 August 2000 by Etablissements
  Biret et Cie against the Council of the European Union                 The applicant company claims that the Court should:
                         (Case T-210/00)                                 —     Annul the contested decision in so far as the Commission
                                                                               applied the adjustment factor of 0,75 to the competition
                                                                               assessment criterion, instead of the proposed factor of 1;
                         (2000/C 302/72)
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     Adopt any other such measure as may appear appropriate
                                                                               on legal and equitable grounds.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Communities on 10 August 2000 by Etablissements Biret et
Cie, established in Paris, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues,
of the Paris Bar.                                                        The applicant in the present case, which is a limited-liability
                                                                         company consisting of a single person, established in Sesto
                                                                         Campano, which is an assisted area for the purposes of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Article 87(3)(c) EC, challenges Commission Decision
                                                                         SG(2000)D/103923 of 30 May 2000 (State Aid No N 787/99)
—     establish the liability of the European Community in the           concerning a project for regional investment aid in favour of
      court-supervised liquidation of the applicant’s subsidiary,        the applicant, as defined in the Commission notice on the
      the company known as Biret International;                          multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment
                                                                         projects.
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay to the
      applicant damages in the sum of FRF 70 630 850;
                                                                         The object of the subsidised project is to establish a plant for
                                                                         the production of clinker (the basic material used in the
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the             manufacture of water-activated binders), which the applicant
      costs.                                                             is at present lacking.
                                                                         The aid in question has been declared partially compatible
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         with the common market. The applicant submits in this regard
                                                                         that the Commission’s decision to use, in the formula for
The applicant claims compensation for the loss and damage                determining the maximum allowable aid intensity, the figure
arising from the court-supervised liquidation of its subsidiary,         of 0,75 as the adjustment factor for the competition assess-
Biret International, which has been forced to cease trading as           ment criterion, and consequently to declare compatible only
a result of the prohibition of imports into the Community of             the amount of ITL 29 176,69 million, is vitiated on the
beef and veal, especially of American origin.                            following grounds:
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/32               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.10.2000
—     Error in the reasoning;                                            Action brought on 23 August 2000 by Cooperativa Mare
                                                                         Azzurro scrl and Others against Commission of the
—     The Commission unlawfully concluded that, notwith-                                    European Communities
      standing a marked upward trend, the market in question
      is in decline;
                                                                                (Case T-218/00)
—     The decision is vitiated in so far as it uses a mean annual
      rate for the entire manufacturing industry equivalent
      to 5,78%;                                                                                (2000/C 302/75)
—     The Commission failed to notify the applicant of the
      principal facts underlying its decision in regard to the use
      of the coefficient of 0,75.                                                          (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 23 August 2000 by Cooperativa
                                                                         Mare Azzurro scrl and Others, represented by Giuseppe
                                                                         Boscolo, of the Venice Bar.
Action brought on 21 August 2000 by Antena 3 de
Televisión, S.A. against the Commission of the European                 The applicants claim that the Court should:
                          Communities
                                                                         —     annul wholly or, in the alternative, in part the contested
                         (Case T-216/00)                                       decision and/or in any event declare the contested
                                                                               decision to be of no effect in respect of the applicants
                         (2000/C 302/74)                                       and furthermore order the defendant to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               The applicants in the present case, cooperatives which provide
European Communities on 21 August 2000 by Antena 3 de                    services to several hundred small fishing undertakings
Televisión, established in Madrid, represented by Fernando              operating from Venice and Chioggia, challenge the contested
Pombo Garcı́a, Emiliano Garayar Gutiérrez and Rosario Alonso             decision of 25 November 1999 on aid to firms in Venice and
Pérez-Villanueva, lawyers.                                               Chioggia by way of relief from social security contributions
                                                                         under Laws Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 (1).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision 2000/400/EC of 10 May                    That decision declares certain aid received by those undertak-
      2000 (‘Eurovision’); and                                           ings to be incompatible with the common market.
—     order the Commission to pay all the costs incurred by
      Antena 3 de Televisión, S.A. in the present proceedings.          In support of their application, the applicants claim that:
                                                                         —     The Commission did not find that the aid in question
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                constitutes an arrangement for a three-year period and
                                                                               is thus not recoverable under Article 15 of Council
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those                      Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
put forward in Case T-185/00 Métropole Télévision M 6 (1).                     down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of
                                                                               the EC Treaty (2).
(1) Not yet published.
                                                                         —     The contested decision fails to take into account the
                                                                               situation concerning rents and occupancy in Chioggia’s
                                                                               old town, inasmuch as it does not apply the derogation
                                                                               provided for in Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty.


title: Case T -340/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Wijsmuller v Commission

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/53

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2006 — Wijsmuller v Commission
   (Case T -340/02) (1)

   (2006/C 224/114)

      Language of the case: Dutch

   The President of the Third Chamber Extended Composition has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 19, 25.1.2003.


title: Case C-241/08: Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/15

         Action brought on 2 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-241/08)
   (2008/C 197/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Recchia and J.-B. Laignelot, Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the laws or regulations necessary to transpose correctly Article 6(2) and (3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               Order the French Republic to bear the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission refers to two grounds for complaint in support of its action, alleging the infringement of Article 6(2) and 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC (‘the Habitats Directive’), respectively.
   By its first ground for complaint, the applicant insists on the clarity of Article 6(2) of the Habitats Directive, which prohibits any deterioration of protected habitats. The introduction into national law of the concept of ‘significant effects’ in order to limit the application of the abovementioned provision to certain human activities, is therefore not justified. Equally, the national legislature may not assert in a peremptory fashion that certain activities such as hunting or fishing ‘do not cause a disturbance’ to ‘Natura 2000’ sites, even if they are carried out for a temporary period or under the national legislation in force.
   By its second ground for complaint, the Commission points out first that Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive requires that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site is to be subject to appropriate assessment, except in strictly defined cases. The defendant's legislation is problematic in the light of Community law since it systematically exempts from the procedure for assessment of the environmental implications the works, projects or schemes provided for under ‘Natura 2000’ contracts.
   The Commission points out second that, under French law, there are projects which do not require authorisation or administrative approval and which therefore avoid the assessment procedure. Yet some of these projects have significant effects on the ‘Natura 2000’ sites, having regard to the objectives of conservation of species.
   According to the Commission, national legislation should finally impose on applicants a clear obligation to provide for alternative solutions where there are negative assessments of the implications of a project or management plan for a site.

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7.


title: Case F-29/08: Action brought on 3 March 2008 — Y v Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/35

         Action brought on 3 March 2008 — Y v Commission
   (Case F-29/08)
   (2008/C 116/69)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Y (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   The subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 24 May 2007 to dismiss the applicant as a contractual agent as a result of alleged insufficient conduct in the service and compensation for the material and non-material damage suffered.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment of 24 May 2007 dismissing the applicant as a contractual agent;

               —

               in as far as necessary, annul the Commission's express decision of 16 November 2007 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant pursuant to Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations on 31 August 2007;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the remuneration which the applicant would have continued to receive if the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employment had not terminated the contract of employment prematurely and unlawfully, and all the benefits to which the applicant is entitled;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant compensation in the value of EUR 500 000 for non-material harm suffered, subject to an increase during the proceedings;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of July 1999 in Case T-111/99 R: Ignacio Samper v European Parliament (Officials - Procedure for interim relief - Urgency - None)

text:
C 281/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                           INSTANCE                                      Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
                                                                         Rheinsheim, v European Parliament (Agents: Hannu von
                        of 30 June 1999                                  Hertzen and João Sant’Anna) — application for suspension of
                                                                         operation of the recruitment procedure commenced by vacan-
                                                                         cy notice No 8675 of 14 April 1999 — the President of the
in Case T-70/99 R: Alpharma Inc. v Council of the                        Court of First Instance made an order on 1 July 1999, the
                        European Union                                   operative part of which is as follows:
(Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of
Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 — Withdrawal of bacitracin                    1. The application for interim measures is dismissed;
zinc from the list of authorised additives — Directive
      70/524/EEC — Urgency — Balancing of interests)                     2. The costs are reserved.
                        (1999/C 281/31)
                  (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-70/99 R: Alpharma Inc., established at Fort Lee
(United States of America), represented by Gavin Robert,
Solicitor, and Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe, v Council of the              ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
European Union (Agents: John Carbery, Moyra Sims and                                                INSTANCE
Jorge Monteiro), supported by Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Peter Oliver, Theofanis Christoforou
and Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi), Republic of Finland (Agents:                                     of 15 July 1999
Holger Rotkirch and Tuula Pynnä) and Kingdom of Sweden
(Agent: Anders Kruse) — application for suspension of the
operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of                       in Case T-167/99 R: Carla Giulietti v Commission of the
17 December 1998 amending, as regards withdrawal of the                                      European Communities
authorisation of certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EEC
concerning additives in feedingstuffs (OJ 1998 L 351, p. 4) or
for other interim measures — the President of the Court of                         (Proceedings for interim relief — Officials)
First Instance made an order on 30 June 1999, the operative
part of which is as follows:
                                                                                (1999/C 281/33)
1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
2. The costs are reserved.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         In Case T-167/99 R: Carla Giulietti, residing in Brussels,
                                                                         represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the
                                                                         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                             offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v
                           INSTANCE                                      Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi
                                                                         Valsesia and Julian Currall) — application for suspension,
                                                                         first, of the decision of the selection board in competition
                           of July 1999                                  COM/A/10/98 to exclude the applicant from the tests sub-
                                                                         sequent to the pre-selection tests and, second, of all of the
in Case T-111/99 R: Ignacio Samper v European Parlia-                    steps taken and acts done subsequently in the procedure
                               ment                                      relating to that competition — the President of the Court of
                                                                         First Instance made an order on 15 July 1999, the operative
(Officials — Procedure for interim relief — Urgency —                    part of which is as follows:
                               None)
                                                                         1. The application for interim measures is dismissed;
                        (1999/C 281/32)
                                                                         2. The costs are reserved.
                   (Language of the case: French)
In Case T-111/99 R: Ignacio Samper, an official of the
European Parliament, residing in Madrid, represented by Eric


               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/27

         Removal from the Register of Case T-236/99 (1)

   (2004/C 239/59)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 4 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-236/99, Direcks Service Station Bocholtz B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002 in Case T-102/01: Orlando Pérez-Díaz v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list — Linguistic competence of members of the selection board)

text:
C 305/22               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           7.12.2002
Grade A 3 to Grade A 6 and, secondly, a claim for compen-                  1.     Annuls the decision of the selection board, contained in the
sation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a                    letter of 13 July 2000, not to enter the applicant’s name on the
result of that decision — the Court of First Instance (Second                     reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/
Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura Ramos, President, J. Pir-                        1999;
rung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a
judgment on 11 September 2002, in which it:                                2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
1.     annuls the decision of the Commission of 19 June 2000
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
       downgrading the applicant from Grade A 3 to Grade A 6;
2.     orders the Commission to pay to the applicant EUR 1 by way
       of compensation for the non-material damage suffered by him;
3.     orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
( 1) OJ No C 227 of 11.8.2001.
                                                                                of 24 September 2002
                                                                           in Case T-102/01: Orlando Pérez-Díaz v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                           (Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list —
                                                                              Linguistic competence of members of the selection board)
                      of 24 September 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 305/48)
in Case T-92/01: Marie-Claude Girardot v Commission of                                           (Language of the case: French)
                  the European Communities (1)
(Officials — Recruitment — Selection of members of the
temporary staff — Refusal of entry on the reserve list —                   In Case T-102/01: Orlando Pérez-Díaz, residing in Brussels,
Composition of the selection board — Equality of treatment)                represented by M.-A. Lucas, lawyer, v Commission of the
                                                                           European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and
                                                                           H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — application for annulment of the
                         (2002/C 305/47)                                   decision of the selection board, contained in a letter of 14 July
                                                                           2000, refusing to enter the applicant’s name on the reserve list
                                                                           of temporary agents resulting from selection procedure COM/
                    (Language of the case: French)                         R/A/01/1999 — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
                                                                           composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and N.J. Forwood and
                                                                           H. Legal, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the
                                                                           Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 September 2002, in
                                                                           which it:
In Case T-92/01: Marie-Claude Girardot, a member of the
temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, residing in Brussels, represented by J.-N. Louis and                 1.     Annuls the decision of the selection board, contained in the
V. Peere, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg,                     letter of 14 July 2000, not to enter the applicant’s name on the
v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                                 reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/
F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Tserepa-Lacombe) — appli-                           1999;
cation for annulment of the decision of the selection board,
contained in a letter of 13 July 2000, refusing to enter the               2.     Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
applicant’s name on the reserve list of temporary agents
resulting from selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 —
the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of:                  (1 ) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
B. Vesterdorf, President, and N. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 24 September 2002, in which it:


title: Case T-268/13: Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2014 — Italy v Commission (Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court establishing an infringement — Liquidate penalty — Judgment quantifying the amount — Recovery obligation — Undertakings subject to insolvency proceedings — Subject of the insolvency proceedings at issue — Due diligence — Burden of proof)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 21 October 2014 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-268/13) (1)

   ((Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court establishing an infringement - Liquidate penalty - Judgment quantifying the amount - Recovery obligation - Undertakings subject to insolvency proceedings - Subject of the insolvency proceedings at issue - Due diligence - Burden of proof))
   (2014/C 431/32)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, G. Conte and B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2013) 1264 final of 7 March 2013 ordering the Italian Republic to pay into the ‘European Union own resources’ account the sum of EUR 1 6 5 33  000 by way of liquidate penalty.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


title: Case C-215/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus — Finland) — Mehiläinen Oy, Terveystalo Healthcare Oy, formerly Suomen Terveystalo Oyj v Oulun kaupunki (Public service contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC — Mixed contract — Contract concluded between a contracting authority and a private company independent of it — Establishment, on an equal basis, of a joint venture to provide health care services — Undertaking by the partners to purchase health care services for their staff from the joint venture for a transitional period of four years)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Markkinaoikeus — Finland) — Mehiläinen Oy, Terveystalo Healthcare Oy, formerly Suomen Terveystalo Oyj v Oulun kaupunki
   (Case C-215/09) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Directive 2004/18/EC - Mixed contract - Contract concluded between a contracting authority and a private company independent of it - Establishment, on an equal basis, of a joint venture to provide health care services - Undertaking by the partners to purchase health care services for their staff from the joint venture for a transitional period of four years)
   2011/C 63/07
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Markkinaoikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Mehiläinen Oy, Terveystalo Healthcare Oy, formerly Suomen Terveystalo Oyj

      Defendant: Oulun kaupunki

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Markkinaoikeus — Interpretation of Article 1(2)(a) and (d) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114) — Agreement between a municipality and an independent private company for the establishment of a joint undertaking, belonging to them in equal shares, to which their respective occupational health and wellbeing activities are transferred — Agreement by which the municipality and the private company commit themselves to acquiring from the new joint undertaking, during a transitional period, occupational health and wellbeing services for their own employees

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that, where a contracting authority concludes with a private company independent of it a contract establishing a joint venture in the form of a share company, the purpose of which is to provide occupational health care and welfare services, the award by the contracting authority of the contract relating to the services for its own staff, the value of which exceeds the threshold laid down by that directive, and which is severable from the contract establishing that company, must be made in accordance with the provisions of that directive applicable to the services in Annex II B thereof.

      (1)  OJ C 193, 15.08.2009.


title: Case C-280/99 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 1999 by Moccia Irme SpA against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 281/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-                     meaning of Article 67(3) of Regulation No 1408/71), but
gerichtshof by order of that court of 29 June 1999 in                        makes its application dependent — apart from the case of
the case of Doris Kaske v Landesgeschäftsstelle des                          reuniting a family — on 15 years’ residence in that State
                    Arbeitsmarktservice Wien                                 before the acquisition of the periods of insurance in the
                                                                             other Member State?
                          (Case C-277/99)                                (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.
                          (1999/C 281/15)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsge-                   Appeal brought on 28 July 1999 by Moccia Irme SpA
richtshof (Administrative Court) of 29 June 1999, which                  against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by the
was received at the Court Registry on 26 July 1999, for a                Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of
preliminary ruling in the case of Doris Kaske v Landesgeschäfts-         First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
stelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien on the following questions:          Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97
                                                                         and T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl,
                                                                         Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria
1. Does the Court of Justice’s ‘Rönfeldt judgment’ [Case                 Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA,
     C-227/89] apply also to a case in which a migrant worker                against Commission of the European Communities
     has made use of ‘freedom of movement’ (or more precisely,
     has anticipated it) before the entry into force of Regulation                                (Case C-280/99 P)
     (EEC) No 1408/71 (1), but also before the EC Treaty came
     into effect in her home State, that is, at a time when she
     could not yet rely on Article 39 et seq. EC (formerly                                         (1999/C 281/16)
     Article 48 et seq.) in the State of employment?
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by
                                                                         the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of
2. If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative:                           First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
                                                                         T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and
                                                                         T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera
     Does application of the Rönfeldt judgment to the insured            Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera
     risk of unemployment mean that a migrant worker may                 Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, against the Com-
     rely on a legal position more favourable than Regulation            mission of the European Communities was brought before the
     No 1408/71 which derives from a bilateral convention                Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July
     between two Member States of the European Union (in this            1999 by Moccia Irme SpA, having its registered office in
     case, the Austro-German Convention on unemployment                  Naples (Italy), represented by Emilio Cappelli, Paolo De Caterini
     insurance) for the further duration of each period of               and Andrea Bandini of the Rome Bar, with an address for
     exercise of freedom of movement within the meaning of               service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13B
     Article 39 et seq. EC (formerly Article 48 et seq.), and thus       avenue Guillaume, L-1651 Luxembourg.
     in particular also for claims which are raised after the
     return from the State of employment to the home State?              The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber, extended
3. If the answer to Question 2 is affirmative: Must such claims              composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European
     be assessed in accordance with the (more favourable)                    Communities of 12 May 1999 in so far as it concerns the
     convention only in so far as they are based on periods of               appellant, Moccia Irme SpA (Case T-164/96);
     insurance under compulsory unemployment insurance
     which were acquired before the entry into force of                  — give judgment for the appellant in the terms sought by it
     Regulation No 1408/71 in the State of employment (in                    at first instance.
     this case, 1 January 1994)?
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
4. If the answer to either of Questions 1 and 2 is negative or           (1) Breach and misapplication of Article 4(c) of the ECSC
     if the answer to Question 3 is affirmative:                             Treaty — Insufficient and contradictory grounds — Misuse
                                                                             of powers.
     Is it permissible from the point of view of the prohibition         (2) Breach and misapplication of Article 4(2), second indent,
     of discrimination under Article 39 EC (formerly Article 42)             of the Fifth Aid Code — No grounds stated — Misuse of
     in conjunction with Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71               powers.
     if a Member State provides in its legal system, for the
     taking into account of periods of insurance completed in            (3) Breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
     another Member State, a more favourable provision that
     Regulation No 1408/71 (in this case, waiver of the require-
     ment of immediately preceding insurance within the


title: Case C-216/06: Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/26

         Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-216/06) (1)

   (2006/C 331/55)

      Language of the case: Spanish

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

      (1)  OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.


title: Case T-317/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  26 January 2006  — Volkswagen v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark Variant — Earlier national word mark DERBIVARIANT — Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal — Likelihood of confusion — Articles 74(1) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/17

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 2006 — Volkswagen v OHIM
   (Case T-317/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Variant - Earlier national word mark DERBIVARIANT - Refusal of registration by the Board of Appeal - Likelihood of confusion - Articles 74(1) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 74/33)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties:

      Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Risthaus, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Weberndörfer and G. Schneider, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nacional Motor, SA (Martorelles, Spain)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 June 2003 (Case R 610/2001-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Nacional Motor, SA and Volkswagen AG.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside paragraph 2 of the operative part of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) of 17 June 2003 in so far as it dismisses the application for registration as a Community trade mark of the word sign Variant for goods and services other than those in Classes 7, 12 and 37.

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.


title: Case C-27/16: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Angel Marinkov v Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za balgarite v chuzhbina (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Directives 2000/78/EC and 2006/54/EC — Scope — Manifest inadmissibility — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Implementation of EU law — None — Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/2

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 8 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad — Bulgaria) — Angel Marinkov v Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za balgarite v chuzhbina
   (Case C-27/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Directives 2000/78/EC and 2006/54/EC - Scope - Manifest inadmissibility - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Implementation of EU law - None - Manifest lack of jurisdiction))
   (2017/C 086/02)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Angel Marinkov

      Defendant: Predsedatel na Darzhavna agentsia za balgarite v chuzhbina

      Re:

   The request for a preliminary ruling brought by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court, Sofia, Bulgaria), by decision of 28 December 2015, is manifestly inadmissible in that it concerns Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and Directive 2006/54/ЕC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation.
   The Court of Justice of the European Union manifestly has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred in that they concern Article 30, 47 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 111, 29.3.2016.


title: Case T-194/12: Order of the General Court of 27 March 2013 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Bauer Consumer Media (GOLF WORLD)

text:
               18.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/26

         Order of the General Court of 27 March 2013 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Bauer Consumer Media (GOLF WORLD)
   (Case T-194/12) (1)

   2013/C 141/50
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.


title: Case C-166/00: Action brought on 8 May 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
8.7.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 192/11
Action brought on 8 May 2000 by the Commission of the                    Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, the
  European Communities against the Hellenic Republic                     Member States are to take all appropriate measures, whether
                                                                         general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations
                                                                         arising out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the
                         (Case C-166/00)                                 institutions of the Community.
                         (2000/C 192/18)                                 It is clear that the Hellenic Republic is required to take
                                                                         measures to comply with the above directives.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 8 May 2000 by the Commission of                  The Commission notes that the Hellenic Republic has not yet
the European Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-                   taken the appropriate measures to transpose the directives in
Durande, of its Legal Service, with an address for service in            question fully into the Greek legal system.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of
the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         ( 1) OJ L 184 of 25.6.1997, p. 33.
                                                                         ( 2) OJ L 19 of 16.1.1998, p. 25.
The Commission of the European Communities asks the Court                ( 3) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1998, p. 43.
                                                                         ( 4) OJ L 261 of 24.9.1999, p. 10.
a) to declare that, by failing to adopt within the period
    prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
    visions necessary to comply with
    — Council Directive 97/41/EC of 25 June 1997 (1)
         amending Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC,
         86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC relating to the fixing of
         maximum levels for pesticide residues in and on,
         respectively, fruit and vegetables, cereals, foodstuffs of      Reference for a preliminary ruling, by order of the
         animal origin, and certain products of plant origin,            Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) of 13 April 2000 in the
         including fruit and vegetables;                                 case of Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Karl Heinz
                                                                                Henkel
    — Council Directive 97/76/EC of 16 December 1997 (2)
         amending Directive 77/99/EEC and Directive                                               (Case C-167/00)
         72/462/EEC with regard to the rules applicable to
         minced meat, meat preparations and certain other
         products of animal origin;                                                               (2000/C 192/19)
    — Commission Directive 98/51/EC of 9 July 1998 (3)                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
         laying down certain measures for implementing                   European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
         Council Directive 95/69/EC laying down the con-                 (Supreme Court) (Austria) of 13 April 2000, which was
         ditions and arrangements for approving and registering          received at the Court Registry on 8 May 2000, for a preliminary
         certain establishments and intermediaries operating in          ruling in the case of Verein für Konsumenteninformation v
         the animal feed sector;                                         Karl Heinz Henkel on the following question:
    — Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September                       Does the right to obtain an injunction to prohibit the use of
         1998 (4)      amending      Directives       80/511/EEC,        unlawful or unconscionable general terms and conditions
         82/475/EEC, 91/357/EEC and Council Directive                    provided for in Paragraph 28 of the Austrian Konsumenten-
         96/25/EC and repealing Directive 92/87/EEC                      schutzgesetz (Law on Customer Protection, ‘KSchG’), BGBl
                                                                         1979/140, which is asserted by a consumer protection organis-
    within the periods prescribed in those directives, the               ation pursuant to Paragraph 29 of the KSchG and in accord-
    Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under         ance with Article 7(2) of Council Directive of 5 April 1993 on
    the Treaty and those directives.                                     unfair terms in consumer contracts (93/13/EEC (1)), constitute
                                                                         a claim arising out of matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-
b) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                         delict which may be asserted in courts with the special
                                                                         jurisdiction provided for in Article 5(3) of the Brussels Conven-
                                                                         tion on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil
                                                                         and Commercial Matters of 27 September 1968?
Pleas in law and main arguments
Under the third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty                   (1) OJ L 95 of 21.4.1993, p. 29.
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
State to which it is addressed.


title: Case C-371/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 13 July 2011 — Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium N.V. v Belgische Staat

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Gent (Belgium) lodged on 13 July 2011 — Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium N.V. v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-371/11)
   2011/C 282/22
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Gent

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium N.V.

      Respondent: Belgische Staat

      Question referred

   Can the national tax authorities exclude the application of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1) of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States on the basis of the provision in that Article that it is not applicable in a case where the subsidiary is liquidated, by relying on a provision of domestic law (here, Article 210 WIB92 [Income Tax Code 1992]) which treats a merger by acquisition where in reality no liquidation of the subsidiary takes place, as a merger where liquidation of the subsidiary does in fact take place?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 225, p. 6


title: Order of the President of 7 October 2015 in Joined Cases E-8/15 and E-9/15, Financial Services and Compensation Scheme Limited v The Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund and De Nederlandsche Bank N.V. v The Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund

text:
               8.12.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 457/12

         ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
   of 7 October 2015
   in Joined Cases E-8/15 and E-9/15,
   Financial Services and Compensation Scheme Limited v The Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund and De Nederlandsche Bank N.V. v The Depositors' and Investors' Guarantee Fund
   (2016/C 457/09)
   Requests to the Court from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court) for Advisory Opinions under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice, the President of the Court made an Order of 7 October 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Joined Cases E-8/15 and E-9/15 are removed from the Register.


title: Case C-120/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 2 March 2005 in Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L represented by the liquidator, Ravensberger Honig GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 2 March 2005 in Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L represented by the liquidator, Ravensberger Honig GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-120/05)
   (2005/C 143/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Hamburg Finance Court) (Germany) of 2 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L represented by the liquidator, Ravensberger Honig GmbH and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, on the following questions:

               Can the documentary evidence provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 7(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1222/94 (1) of 30 May 1994 be disregarded and the exporter permitted to adduce evidence as to the products actually used in the manufacture of the exported goods by means of other types of evidence if the exporter cannot (is no longer able to) adduce the documents relating to production by reason of force majeure?

               Does the incidence of force majeure also lead to a reduction in the standard of proof in the sense that the exporter merely has to produce prima facie evidence of or plausibly demonstrate the products actually used in the manufacture of the exported goods?

      (1)  OJ L 136, p. 5.


               10.3.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/26

         Action brought on 11 January 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against the Kingdom of Norway
   (Case E-1/05)
   (2005/C 60/10)
   An action against the Kingdom of Norway was brought before the EFTA Court on 11 January 2005 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Niels Fenger and Per Andreas Bjørgan, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35, Rue Belliard, B-1040 Brussels.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               Declare that by maintaining in force the requirement on up-front payment of completion costs found in Section 3(2) of the Norwegian Regulation of 21 November 1989 No 1167 on the Allocation of Costs, Losses, Income, Funds etc. between Insurance Undertakings in a Concern and between Branches and Contracts of Insurance Undertakings, and Section 10 of the Norwegian Regulation of 22 September 1995 No 827 on Insurance Services and the Establishment of a Branch of an Insurance Undertaking with Headquarters in another EEA State, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligation pursuant to Article 33 of the Act referred to at point 11 of Annex IX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2002/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002 concerning life assurance) as adapted to the EEA Agreement by Protocol 1 thereto; and

               2.

               Order the Kingdom of Norway to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               Article 33 of the Act states that the EEA State of the commitment ‘shall not prevent a policy holder from concluding a contract with an assurance undertaking authorised under the conditions of Article 4 as long as that does not conflict with legal provisions protecting the general good in the Member State of the commitment’.

               —

               The preamble of the Act states that ‘within the framework of an internal market it is in the policy-holders' interest that they should have access to the widest possible range of assurance products available in the Community so that they can choose that which is best suited to their needs… [I]n an internal market for assurance the consumer will have a wider and more varied choice of contracts’.

               —

               The Norwegian requirement in Section 10 of Regulation of 22 September 1995 No 827 requires foreign assurance undertakings to calculate and require payment of completion costs in accordance with Section 3(2) of Regulation of 21 November 1989 No 1167 in order to market their products in Norway.

               —

               The requirement prevents a policy-holder in Norway from entering into a contract with an assurance undertaking that distributes completion costs over a period of time, thereby limiting consumer choice.

               —

               Furthermore, the provision potentially limits the provision of different assurance services since assurance undertakings authorised in other EEA States may be hindered from marketing their products in Norway.


title: Case C-107/03 P: Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed by the original lodged on 7 March 2003, by The Procter & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on 12 December 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-63/01 between The Procter & Gamble Company and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
21.6.2003               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/17
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                       In addition, the Court of First Instance did not apply the
                                                                                interdependence rule clearly. The Court of First Instance
                                                                                did not raise the point that the claimed low degree of
—     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                    similarity between the marks was not offset by the high
      12 December 2002 in Case T-110/01 and accordingly                           degree of similarity between the goods and the strongly
                                                                                distinctive character of the applicant’s trade mark.
      —     acting pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the
                                                                                Finally, the Court of First Instance infringed the concept
            Court of Justice, give final judgment in the matter,
            granting the forms of order sought by the applicant                   of ‘likelihood of confusion’ by limiting the public con-
            before the Court of First Instance;                                   cerned to the ‘targeted public’, the latter comprising only
                                                                                consumers likely to acquire the marked goods, whereas
                                                                                the public concerned consists of all persons likely to be
      —     in the alternative: refer the case back to the Court of               confronted with the mark, which is very different.
            First Instance for judgment;
                                                                            (1 ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
—     in any case: order OHIM to pay the costs.                                  Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1).
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Plea alleging breach of the ‘principle of party disposition’
                                                                            Appeal brought on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed
      The ‘principle of party disposition’ is a general principle           by the original lodged on 7 March 2003, by The Procter
      of law under which the parties exercise, in principle, sole           & Gamble Company against the judgment delivered on
      control over legal proceedings. It is they who delimit the            12 December 2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
      subject-matter of the dispute. The Court of First Instance            of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
      certainly acted in breach of the ‘principle of party                  T-63/01 between The Procter & Gamble Company and
      disposition’ by holding, contrary to the agreement of the             the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
      parties on this point, that there was no similarity between                         (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      the conflicting trade marks.
                                                                                (Case C-107/03 P)
—     Plea alleging breach of the right to a fair hearing
      The Court of First Instance also acted in breach of the                                         (2003/C 146/29)
      right to a fair hearing since it undermined the applicant’s
      legitimate expectation as to the delimitation of the
      dispute.
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 December
—     Plea alleging infringements of the concept of ‘likelihood             2002 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
      of confusion’ and the concept of ‘public’ within the                  the European Communities in Case T-63/01 between The
      meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (1)                 Procter & Gamble Company and the Office for Harmonisation
                                                                            in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      The contested judgment rules out the likelihood of                    was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
      confusion on the ground that the public ‘will not                     Communities on 27 February 2003 by fax, confirmed by the
      attribute the same commercial origin to the goods in                  original lodged on 7 March 2003, by The Procter & Gamble
      question’. However, a likelihood of confusion also exists             Company.
      where the public may believe that the goods come from
      undertakings which are connected only economi-
      cally. Moreover, the Court of First Instance rejected any             The appellant claims that the Court should:
      likelihood of confusion on the ground that ‘even though
      there is identity and similarity between the goods covered
      by the conflicting marks, the visual, aural and conceptual            —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      differences between the signs’ mean that there is no                        12 December 2002 in Case T-63/01 and, in consequence
      likelihood of confusion, whereas the question is not                        thereof,
      whether there are differences between the conflicting
      marks, but whether there is identity or similarity between                  —     primarily: apply Article 54 of the Statute of the
      them and whether, considered as a whole with the                                  Court of Justice and give final judgment in the
      identity or similarity of the goods, the degrees of those                         matter, upholding the form of order sought by the
      similarities are such that there is a likelihood of confusion.                    appellant before the Court of First Instance;
 ---pagebreak--- C 146/18                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.6.2003
      —     in the alternative: refer the case back to the Court of        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
            First Instance for judgment;                                   Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by judgment of that Court
                                                                           of 8 January 2003 in the case of KPN Telecom B.V. against
                                                                           Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunicatie Autoriteit;
—     in any event: order OHIM to pay the costs.                           Interested parties: Denda Multimedia B.V. and Denda
                                                                                Directory Services B.V.
                                                                                (Case C-109/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2003/C 146/30)
—     Plea alleging breach of the presumption that documents
      may be relied on or inconsistency in the grounds of the
      judgment:
      Contrary to what the Court of First Instance states, the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      sign reproduced does not present any of the 24 rectangles            European Communities by order of the College van Beroep
      or any of the six parallelograms of which a rectangular              voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and
      parallelepiped consists.                                             Industry) of 8 January 2003, received at the Court Registry on
                                                                           10 March 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of KPN
                                                                           Telecom B.V. against Onafhankelijke Post en Telecommunica-
                                                                           tie Autoriteit; Interested parties: Denda Multimedia B.V. and
—     Plea alleging misconstruction of the concept of distinctive
      character:                                                           Denda Directory Services B.V. on the following questions:
      When it is necessary to determine whether a sign is                  1.    Is ‘relevant information’ in Article 6(3) of Directive 98/
      capable of fulfilling its function as an individual mark                   10/EC ( 1) to be interpreted as meaning only the numbers
      for specific goods or services, when the merits of an                      together with the name, address, town/city and postcode
      application for registration as an individual mark for                     of the person to whom the number has been issued and
      those goods and services are being examined, it is                         any entry as to whether the number is used (exclusively)
      necessary to reason in terms of the presumed perception                    as a fax line published by the organisations concerned or
      of the use which might be made of the sign and not in                      does ‘relevant information’ also cover other data at the
      terms of the actual perception of any actual use already                   disposal of the organisations such as an additional
      made of the sign. The Court of First Instance maintains                    entry relating to a profession, another name, another
      that the distinctive character of the sign must be assessed                municipality or mobile telephone numbers?
      in relation ‘to the perception of the relevant public’. In
      that regard, the relevant public consists of all persons
      likely to find themselves in the presence of the sign and            2.    Is ‘meet (...) reasonable requests (...) on terms which
      cannot therefore be reduced to the much more restricted                    are fair, cost oriented and non-discriminatory’ in the
      circle of consumers likely to acquire the goods or services                provision referred in Question 1 to be interpreted as
      which the sign is supposed to designate.                                   meaning that:
      Furthermore, the Court of First Instance indirectly but                    a)    numbers together with the name, address, town/city
      definitely misconstrued the concept of distinctive charac-                       and postcode of the person to whom the number
      ter when it failed to rule on whether or not the sign was                        has been issued must be made available for a
      incapable of distinguishing one bar of soap from another                         remuneration of only the marginal costs involved in
      as coming from a specific undertaking, but rather whether                        actually making them available, and
      the imperfect picture of that sign had such capacity.
      Last, the Court of First Instance misunderstood the                        b)    data other than those referred to in paragraph (a)
      concept of distinctive character by completely disre-                            must be made available for a remuneration intended
      garding the multifunctionality of signs. It is not because                       to cover the costs of what the provider of these data
      it might be presumed that, in the presence of the sign in                        shows he has incurred in obtaining or providing
      issue, the public will perceive above all or primarily a sign                    these data?
      that fulfils a technical or ornamental function that the
      performance of its function as an individual trade mark
      would be precluded or even reduced.
                                                                           (1 ) OJ L 101 [1998], p. 24.


title: Case C-661/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Erich Wirtl v Finanzamt Göppingen

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Erich Wirtl v Finanzamt Göppingen
   (Case C-661/16)
   (2017/C 086/16)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Erich Wirtl

      Defendant: Finanzamt Göppingen

      Questions referred

               1.

               In accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 13 March 2014, Firin, (C-107/13, (1)), is the deduction of input tax on a payment on account excluded where the occurrence of the chargeable event is uncertain at the time when the payment on account is made. Is that exclusion determined by reference to the objective situation or by reference to the point of view of the person having made the payment on account in the light of the circumstances objectively apparent to him?

               2.

               Is the judgment of the Court of Justice in Firin to be interpreted as meaning that, under EU law, an adjustment of the deduction, by a person having made a payment on account for a supply of goods, of the input tax indicated on the invoice issued to that person for that payment is not conditional upon the refund of the payment on account which has been made, where that supply does not ultimately take place?

               3.

               In the event that the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, does Article 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (VAT Directive), (2) which allows the Member States to lay down the detailed rules for the adjustment provided for in Article 185 of the VAT Directive, authorise the Federal Republic of Germany, as a Member State, to provide in its national law that the taxable amount may be reduced only if the payment on account is refunded, and that the VAT debt and the deduction of input tax are, accordingly, to be adjusted at the same time and under the same conditions?

      (1)  ECLI:EU:C:2014:151.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-300/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 17 June 2010 — Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA, Jorge Manuel da Cunha Carvalheira, Paulo Manuel Carvalheira, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Portugal) lodged on 17 June 2010 — Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida v Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA, Jorge Manuel da Cunha Carvalheira, Paulo Manuel Carvalheira, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel
   (Case C-300/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/42
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vítor Hugo Marques Almeida

      Defendants: Companhia de Seguros Fidelidade-Mundial SA, Jorge Manuel da Cunha Carvalheira, Paulo Manuel Carvalheira, Fundo de Garantia Automóvel

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Must Articles 3(1) of the First Directive (72/166/EEC), (1) 2(1) of the Second Directive (84/5/EEC) (2) and 1 and 1a of the Third Directive (90/232/EEC) (3) be interpreted to the effect that they preclude national civil law, in particular through the rules laid down in Articles 503(1), 504, 505 and 570 of the Civil Code, from providing that if, when two vehicles collide, the event is not attributable to the fault of either driver, and it gives rise to personal injury to the passenger in one of the vehicles (the injured person seeking compensation), the compensation to which the latter is entitled is to be refused or limited, on the ground that that passenger has contributed to the occurrence of the injury, for he was travelling in the vehicle, in the front passenger seat, without fastening his seat-belt as required by national legislation?

               (b)

               having regard to the fact that it has been established that when the two vehicles involved collided, because of that collision and because he had not fastened his seat-belt, that passenger struck his head with force against the windscreen, breaking it, which resulted in deep cuts to his head and face?

               (c)

               and having regard to the fact that, one of the vehicles involved not being covered by valid and effective insurance with any insurer at the date of the accident, the defendants and respondents in the proceedings include, in addition to the insurer of the other vehicle involved, the owner of the uninsured vehicle, its driver and the Fundo de Garantia Automóvel, who and which may, in so far as strict liability is concerned, be jointly and severally liable to pay such compensation?

      (1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

      (2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

      (3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).


               18.12.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 314/11

         Removal from the register of Case C-21/04 (1)

   (2004/C 314/27)
   By order of 8 September 2004 the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-21/04: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

      (1)  OJ C 55 of 8.3.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 2004 in Case T-168/02: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Access to documents — Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — Article 4(5) — No disclosure of a document from a Member State without the prior agreement of that State)

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/19

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 30 November 2004
   in Case T-168/02: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH v Commission of the European Communities (1)

   (Action for annulment - Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Article 4(5) - No disclosure of a document from a Member State without the prior agreement of that State)
   (2005/C 31/37)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-168/02: IFAW Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds gGmbH, formerly Internationaler Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany), represented by S. Crosby, Solicitor, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H. Sevenster, S. Terstal, N. Bel and C. Wissels, with an address for service in Luxembourg), the Kingdom of Sweden (Agents: A. Kruse and K. Wistrand, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and the Kingdom of Denmark (Agents: initially J. Bering Liisberg, and subsequently J. Molde, with an address for service in Luxembourg), against the Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Docksey and P. Aalto, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by R. Caudwell, acting as Agent, and M. Hoskins, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg) – application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 26 March 2002 refusing to grant the applicant access to certain documents, relating to the declassification of a protected site, in accordance with Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) – the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: P. Lindh, President, R. García-Valdecasas, J.D. Cooke, P. Mengozzi and M.E. Martins Ribeiro, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 November 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission;

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Kingdom of Denmark and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case T-598/14: Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/60

         Order of the General Court of 15 September 2015 — Almashreq Investment Fund v Council
   (Case T-598/14) (1)

   (2015/C 381/79)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 361, 13.10.2014.


title: Case T-82/05: Action brought on 17 February 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/41

         Action brought on 17 February 2005 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-82/05)
   (2005/C 93/74)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 February 2005 by the Italian Republic, represented by Antonio Cingolo, Avvocato dello Stato.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the memorandum of 8 December 2004, D(2004) 12075 concerning: payments by the Commission differing from the sum requested in respect of Programme P.E.P. Campania, request for payment number 2004 2245, in so far as the European Commission – Directorate-General for Regional Policy – intervention in Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta, Hungary and the Netherlands, has communicated the following decision: ‘as stated in letter No 0037474 of 25 November of the Ministry of the Economy, the sum of EUR 1 994 835 has not been accepted as valid in relation to measure 4.2, so far as it relates to advances on schemes of aid granted after 19 February 2003 or the notice of which was closed after that date, which have not been used by the final recipient in order to pay actual expenses’;

               —

               annul all connected and contingent acts;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
       (1).

      (1)  OJEU C 262 of 23 October 2004, p. 55.