title: Case C-215/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 11 May 2015 — Vasilka Ivanova Gogova v Iliya Dimitrov Iliev

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/29

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 11 May 2015 — Vasilka Ivanova Gogova v Iliya Dimitrov Iliev
   (Case C-215/15)
   (2015/C 236/39)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varhoven kasatsionen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant in cassation: Vasilka Ivanova Gogova

      Respondent in the appeal in cassation: Iliya Dimitrov Iliev

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the possibility, provided for by law, for civil courts to resolve a dispute between parents concerning their child’s ability to travel abroad and the issue of identity documents, where the applicable substantive law requires that those parental rights be exercised jointly with regard to the child, constitute a matter relating to ‘the attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility’ within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 2(7), of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility to which Article 8(1) of that regulation applies?

               2.

               Do grounds establishing international jurisdiction apply in civil cases concerning parental responsibility where the decision replaces a legal act central to an administrative procedure concerning the child and the applicable law provides that this procedure must take place in a specific EU Member State?

               3.

               Must it be assumed that there is a prorogation of jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 where the respondent’s representative has not challenged the jurisdiction of the court but where that representative has not been authorised by the respondent but rather appointed by the court owing to the difficulty in notifying the respondent in order that he might participate in the proceedings in person or through a representative instructed by him?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.


title: Case C-388/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH v Finanzamt Sankt Augustin (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tax legislation — Corporation tax — Freedom of establishment — Non-resident permanent establishment — Avoidance of double taxation by exemption of the income of the non-resident permanent establishment — Taking account of losses incurred by that permanent establishment — Reincorporation of the losses deducted previously in the event that the non-resident establishment is transferred — Definitive losses)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/14

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln — Germany) — Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH v Finanzamt Sankt Augustin
   (Case C-388/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Tax legislation - Corporation tax - Freedom of establishment - Non-resident permanent establishment - Avoidance of double taxation by exemption of the income of the non-resident permanent establishment - Taking account of losses incurred by that permanent establishment - Reincorporation of the losses deducted previously in the event that the non-resident establishment is transferred - Definitive losses))
   (2016/C 068/17)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Timac Agro Deutschland GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Sankt Augustin

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State’s tax regime, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the event of transfer by a resident company to a non-resident company within the same group of a permanent establishment situated in another Member State, the losses previously deducted in respect of the establishment transferred are reincorporated into the taxable profit of the transferring company where, under a double taxation convention, the income of such a permanent establishment is exempt from tax in the Member State in which the company to which that establishment belonged has its seat.

               2.

               Article 49 TFEU is to be interpreted as not precluding a Member State’s tax regime, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, in the event of transfer by a resident company to a non-resident company within the same group of a permanent establishment situated in another Member State, excludes the possibility, for the resident company, of taking into account in its tax base the losses of the establishment transferred where, under a double taxation convention, the exclusive power to tax the profits of that establishment lies with the Member State in which the establishment is situated.

      (1)  OJ C 372, 20.10.2014.


title: Case C-653/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2011 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Paul Newey t/a Ocean Finance

text:
               3.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) (United Kingdom) made on 19 December 2011 — Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs v Paul Newey t/a Ocean Finance
   (Case C-653/11)
   2012/C 65/13
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

      Defendant: Paul Newey t/a Ocean Finance

      Questions referred

               1.

               In circumstances such as those in the present case, what weight should a national court give to contracts in determining the question of which person made a supply of services for the purposes of VAT? In particular, is the contractual position decisive in determining the VAT supply position?

               2.

               In circumstances such as those in the present case, if the contractual position is not decisive, in what circumstances should a national court depart from the contractual position?

               3.

               In circumstances such as those in the present case, in particular, to what extent is it relevant:

                           (a)

                           Whether the person who makes the supply as a matter of contract is under the overall control of another person?

                           (b)

                           Whether the business knowledge, commercial relationship and experience rests with a person other than that which enters into the contract?

                           (c)

                           Whether all or most of the decisive elements in the supply are performed by a person other than that which enters into the contract?

                           (d)

                           Whether the commercial risk of financial and reputational loss arising from the supply rests with someone other than that which enters into the contracts?

                           (e)

                           Whether the person making the supply, as a matter of contract, sub-contracts decisive elements necessary for such supply to a person controlling that first person and such sub-contracting arrangements lack certain commercial features?

               4.

               In circumstances such as those in the present case, should the national court depart from the contractual analysis?

               5.

               If the answer to question 4 is ‘no’, is the tax result of arrangements such as those in this case a tax advantage the grant of which would be contrary to the purpose of the Sixth Directive (1) within the meaning of paragraphs 74 to 86 of the Judgment in Case C-255/02 Halifax Plc and others v CCE?

               6.

               If the answer to question 5 is yes, how should arrangements such as those in the present case be recharacterised?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
   OJ L 145, p. 1


title: Appeal brought on 8 May 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-432/93, T-433/93 and T-434/93 between Socurte - Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Lda., Quavi - Revestimentos de Cortiça, Lda. and Stec - Sociedade Transformadora de Carnes, Lda. and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-143/95 P)

text:
22 . 7. 95              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 189/9
       Ebro, ECU 1 305 169 for Laisa and ECU 2 132 421              necessarily entail formation of stocks, that the applicants
       for Cerestar, or at such other amounts as this Court         were in a different situation than the sugar producers and
       considers appropriate, increased by an interest of 8 %       that the different treatment as regards the aid paid to the
       per year from the date of the application to the Court       sugar producers for sugar held in stock on 31 December
       of First Instance until the date of payment; or              1992 was justified .
(iii ) refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;
                                                                    The Court of First Instance ignored the judgment of this
       and                                                          Court in Royal Scholten-Honig as well as the common
                                                                    organization of the market in the sugar sector and infringed
                                                                    the principle of non-discrimination and Article 190 of the
( iv ) order the Council to pay the applicants' costs in this       EC Treaty in finding that the applicants are in a different
       proceedings and the proceedings before the Court of          situation than the sugar producers and could be treated
       First Instance .                                             differently because they are not obliged to pay a minimum
                                                                    price fixed by the Community for their raw materials .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Finally, the Court of First Instance infringed various
                                                                    provisions and principles of Community law in dismissing
                                                                    the applicants' plea alleging a breach of the principle of
The Court of First Instance infringed Article 70 ( 3 ) ( b ) of the non-discrimination .
Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal, the principle of
legitimate expectations and Article 190 of the EC Treaty in
finding that the applicants could not derive any legitimate         f 1 ) OJ No L 387, 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 7 .
                                                                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 162 , 26 . 6 . 1991 , p . 18 .
expectations from the Act of Accession.
The Court of First Instance wrongly interpreted Regulation
( EEC ) No 1716/91 (2 ) and infringed the principle of the
protection of legitimate expectations and Article 190 of the
EC Treaty in finding that Regulation ( EEC ) No 1716/91
could not have given rise to a legitimate expectation on the        Appeal brought on 8 May 1995 by the Commission of the
applicants ' part.                                                  European Communities against the judgment delivered on
                                                                    7 March 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
The Court of First Instance ignored Article 28 of the Single        T-432/93 , T-433/93 and T-434/93 between Socurte —
European Act and infringed the principle of the protection          Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Lda., Quavi —
of legitimate expectations and Article 190 of the EC Treaty         Revestimentos de Cortiça, Lda. and Stec — Sociedade
in finding that prudent and well-informed traders ought to          Transformadora de Carnes, Lda. and the Commission of
have realized that achievement of the single market might
                                                                                the European Communities
lead to an early alignment of the intervention price of
sugar .                                                                                ( Case C-143/95 P)
                                                                                ( 95/C 189/16 )
The Court of First Instance wrongly interpreted Regulation
( EEC ) No 1716/91 and infringed the principle of legitimate        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 7 March 1995
expectations and Article 190 of the EC Treaty in finding that       by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
the applicants could not have had a legitimate expectation          European Communities in Joined Cases T-432/93 ,
worthy of protection in the conditions under which price            T-433/93 and T-434/93 between Socurte — Sociedade de
alignment was carried out with effect from the 1993/94              Curtumes a Sul do Tejo, Lda ., Quavi — Revestimentos de
marketing year.                                                     Cortiça, Lda . and Stec — Sociedade Transformadora de
                                                                    Carnes, Lda . and the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
The Court of First Instance infringed various provisions and        European Communities on 8 May 1995 by the Commission
principles of Community law in dismissing the applicants '          of the European Communities, represented by Francisco de
plea alleging a breach of the principle of the protection of        Sousa Fialho and Nicholas Khan, of its Legal Service, with
legitimate expectations.                                            an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                    Georgios Kremlis, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
In paragraph 81 of the judgment, the Court of First Instance        Kirchberg.
misconstrued the applicants' arguments and infringed the
principle of non-discrimination and Article 190 of the EC           The appellant claims that the Court should:
Treaty.
                                                                     1 , annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
The Court of First Instance erred in law and infringed the                Chamber ) of 7 March 1995 in Joined Cases T-432/93 ,
principle of non-discrimination and Article 190 of the EC                 T-433/93 and T-434/93 ;
Treaty in inferring, from the fact that the production of
isoglucose, unlike the production of sugar, does not                2 , order the applicants at first instance to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 189/ 10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 7 . 95
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      6 . If the answer to questions 3 and 5 is in the affirmative, is
                                                                             a widower who does not receive a pension and other
— Time limit for instituting proceedings : the Court of First                survivor's benefits on the basis of that provision (Article
    Instance departed from Community law by finding that,                    9 ( 1 ) ( a) ofLaw No 4491/1966 ) entitled toapension and
    notwithstanding the fact that a decision was notified to                 survivor's benefits under the same conditions as those
    the applicants, the time limit for instituting proceedings               laid down for widows ?
    provided for in Article 173 of the Treaty had begun to
    run for the applicants only from the moment when they
    had '. . . sufficient knowledge of the reasons for the
    Commission's decision'.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di
                                                                         Genova — Sezione prima civile — by order of that court of
— Infringement of Community law: the Commission                          30 March 1995 in the case of Igino Mazzola SpA v.
    considers that the obligation arising from Article 6 of                               Ministero delle Finanze dello Stato
    Regulation (EEC ) No 2950/83 i 1 ) must be interpreted in
    the specific context of the many and necessarily close                                         (Case C-148/95 )
    contacts between the Commission and the Portuguese                                               ( 95/C 189/18 )
    authorities .
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Cour^ of Justice of the
(M OJ No L 289 , 22 . 10 . 1983 , p . 1 .
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the Tribunale di
                                                                         Genova, Sezione prima civile ( District Court, Genova, First
                                                                         Civil Section ) of 30 March 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                         Court Registry on 12 May 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                         the case of Igino Mazzola SpA v . Ministero delle Finanze
                                                                         dello Stato ( State Finance Minister ) on the same questions as
                                                                         in Case C-92/95 ( M.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dioikitiko Efetio
( Administrative Court of Appeal), Athens, by a decision of              (M OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
that court of 30 March 1995 in the case of Dimosia
       Epicheirisi Ilectrismou ( DEI) v. E. Evrenopoulos
                            ( Case C-147/95 )
                              ( 95/C 189/17                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
                                                                         Administratif, Amiens ( Second Chamber) by judgment of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   that court of 20 April 1995 in the case of Michel Macon,
European Communities by a decision of the Administrative                 Monique Macon, Philippe Macon, Jacqueline Sauvrezy
Court of Appeal, Athens, of 30 March 1995 , which was                    and Pascal Macon against the Prefect of the Aisne
received at the Court Registry on 12 May 1995 , for a                                                  Department
preliminary ruling in the case of Dimosia Epicheirisi                                              ( Case C-152/95 )
Ilectrismou ( DEI ) ( Public Electricity Company ) v . E.                                            ( 95/C 189/19
Evrenopoulos on the following questions :
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1 . Is the DEI insurance scheme as described in paragraph 2              European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
     of the decision an occupational or a statutory                      Administratif (Administrative Court ), Amiens ( Second
     scheme ?                                                            Chamber) of 20 April 1995, which was received at the Court
                                                                         Registry on 15 May 1995 , for a preliminarty ruling in the
2 . Does Article 1 19 of the EC Treaty or Directive 79/7/EEC             case of Michel Macon, Monique Macon, Philippe Macon,
     apply to the scheme, in particular to the survivors '               Jacqueline Sauvrezy and Pascal Macon against the Prefect of
     benefits for which it provides ?                                    the Aisne Department on the question set out below.
3 . Is Article 9 ( 1 ) ( a ) of Greek Law No 4491 / 1966 contrary        The Tribunal Administratif, Amiens ( Second Chamber) asks
     to Article 119 of the EC Treaty ?                                   the Court of Justice to give a ruling on the following
                                                                         question :
4 . Is its maintenance in force permitted by any other
     Community provision ?                                               Must Article 2 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1637/91 of
                                                                         13 June 1991 fixing compensation with regard to the
5 . Does Article 119 of the EC Treaty apply to the case in               reduction of the reference quantities referred to in Article 5c
     point in the light of Protocol 2 to the EEC Treaty and the          of Regulation ( EEC ) No 804/68 and compensation for
     fact that the respondent brought his original action                the definitive discontinuation of milk production i 1 ) be
     before 17 May 1990, that is to say on 12 June 1989 , but            interpreted as precluding the grant of compensation for
     that action was, however, dismissed by Decision                     definitive discontinuation of milk production to a farmer
     No 8361 / 1990 of the Administrative Court of First                 who, while not producing milk, none the less at the time the
     Instance , Athens, because no objection had been lodged             application is made possesses milk reference quantities, by
     ( quasi-judicial action) against the decision of the                virtue of direct sales in particular ?
     Director of the Staff Insurance, and in the decision a time
                                                                         (!) OJ No L 150, 15 . 6 . 1991 , p . 30 .
     limit of three months was allowed for lodging such an
     objection ?


C 55/22                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                       8.3.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-89/02 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-97/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/58)                                                         (2003/C 55/61)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of             By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-89/02 (Reference for a preliminary         from the register of Case C-97/02 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Dolomite Franchi SpA v            ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Rezzola Scavi Srl v
Ministero delle Finanze.                                               Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-95/02 (1)                          Removal from the register of Case C-98/02 (1)
                         (2003/C 55/59)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/62)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
                                                                       By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-95/02 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                       from the register of Case C-98/02 (Reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Ugine Srl v Ministero delle
                                                                       ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): Villa Gemma SpA v
Finanze.
                                                                       Ministero delle Finanze.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-96/02 (1)
                                                                               Removal from the register of Case C-106/02 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 55/60)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/63)
By order of 15 November 2002 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 12 December 2002 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-96/02 (Reference for a preliminary         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
ruling by the Tribunale di Brescia): TOMAR Srl v Ministero             from the register of Case C-106/02: Commission of the
delle Finanze.                                                         European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
( 1) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.                                           (1 ) OJ C 131 of 01.06.2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 20 November 1997 in Case C-244/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon): P. Moskof A.E. v. Ethnikos Organismos Kapnou (Agriculture - Raw tobacco - Monetary measures - Agricultural conversion rates)

text:
C 7/6                 EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10. 1. 98
Subheading 60.04 B IV b 2 bb of the Common Customs                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Tariff, in the version resulting from Council Regulation
(EEC) No 3400/84 of 27 November 1984 amending                                                (Fifth Chamber)
Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs
                                                                                of 20 November 1997
Tariff, must be construed as covering undergarments
which, by reason of their objective characteristics, are             in Case C-90/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
intended to be worn exclusively or essentially in bed.               the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto):
                                                                     David Petrie and Others v. UniversitaÁ degli Studi di
(1) OJ C 333, 9. 12. 1995.                                                             Verona, Camilla Bettoni (1)
                                                                     (Freedom of movement for workers Ð Foreign-language
                                                                     assistants Ð Eligibility for appointment to teach
                                                                     supplementary courses and to fill temporary teaching
                                                                                vacancies in universities)
                                                                                (98/C 7/12)
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                    of 20 November 1997                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-244/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon): P. Moskof A.E. v.
              Ethnikos Organismos Kapnou (1)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Agriculture Ð Raw tobacco Ð Monetary measures Ð                              published in the European Court Reports)
                Agricultural conversion rates)
                          (98/C 7/11)
                                                                     In Case C-90/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty from the Tribunale Amministrativo
                (Language of the case: Greek)                        Regionale per il Veneto (Italy) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                     the proceedings pending before that court between David
                                                                     Petrie and Others and UniversitaÁ degli Studi di Verona,
                                                                     Camilla Bettoni Ð on the interpretation of Articles 5 and
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     48 of the EC Treaty and Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on
                                                                     freedom of movement for workers within the Community
                                                                     (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) Ð the
In Case C-244/95: reference to the Court under Article 177           Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
of the EC Treaty by the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Athinon               President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before           (Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and L.
that court between P. Moskof A.E. and Ethnikos                       Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Organismos Kapnou Ð on the validity of Commission                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 of 17 December 1993                       20 November 1997, in which it has ruled:
concerning the agricultural conversion rates to be applied
in the tobacco sector (OJ L 317, 18. 12. 1993, p. 30) Ð
the Court, composed of C. Gulmann, President of the
Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and L. Sevón                      Articles 5 and 48 (2) of the EC Treaty do not preclude a
(Rapporteur), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L.              national rule which reserves eligibility for appointment to
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a               fill temporary teaching vacancies in universities to tenured
judgment on 20 November 1997, in which it has ruled:                 teachers and established researchers and excludes foreign-
                                                                     language assistants, unless such appointment is open to
                                                                     other categories of staff appointed to university teaching
Examination of the various grounds referred to by the                otherwise than by way of open competition, whose
national court in its questions has not revealed any factor          teaching and academic skills are not subject to evaluation
capable of affecting the validity of Article 5 of                    in the same way as those of researchers, whilst foreign-
Commission Regulation (EC) No 3477/93 of 17 December                 language assistants who, under national law, have the
1993 concerning the agricultural conversion rates to be              same status and perform equivalent duties are excluded.
applied in the tobacco sector.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 158, 1. 6. 1996.
(1) OJ C 268, 14. 10. 1995.


title: Case F-89/13: Action brought on 18 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               25.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/39

         Action brought on 18 September 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-89/13)
   2014/C 24/73
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Mansullo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the decisions to recover the sum of EUR 504.67 by withholding that sum from the applicant’s invalidity allowance for the each of the three months from January to March 2013.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decisions, contained in the applicant’s pension statements for the months January to March 2013, to withhold EUR 504,67 from the invalidity allowance to which the applicant was entitled in respect of those months;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, rejecting the complaint of 13 April 2013 against those decisions;

               —

               annul each decision contained in the note of 22 April 2013 bearing the reference ‘Ref Ares(2013)790217’ in the top right-hand corner of the first page of that note;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant the following sums: (1) EUR 504.67 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 February 2013 until actual payment of that sum; (2) EUR 504,67 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 March 2013 until actual payment of that sum; (3) EUR 504,67 together with interest on that sum at the rate of 10 % per annum and annual capitalisation from 1 April 2013 until actual payment of that sum;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case T-392/09 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 2 March 2011 — 1. garantovaná v Commission (Application for interim measures — Competition — Commission Decision imposing a fine — Bank guarantee — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Prima facie case — Financial loss — Exceptional circumstances — Urgency — Balance of interests — Partial and conditional suspension)

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/20

         Order of the President of the General Court of 2 March 2011 — 1. garantovaná v Commission
   (Case T-392/09 R)
   (Application for interim measures - Competition - Commission Decision imposing a fine - Bank guarantee - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Prima facie case - Financial loss - Exceptional circumstances - Urgency - Balance of interests - Partial and conditional suspension)
   2011/C 152/36
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: 1. garantovaná a.s. (Bratislava, Slovakia) (represented: initially by M. Powell, Solicitor, A. Sutton and G. Forwood, Barristers, and subsequently by M. Powell and G. Forwood)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Bourke and N. von Lingen, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of operation of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for leave to intervene, lodged by Messrs Jaroslav Červenka, Milan Hošek, Roman Murar, Adrián Vološin, Milan Kasanický and Peter Fratič, is dismissed.

               2.

               The obligation on the applicant, 1. garantovaná a.s., to provide the European Commission with a bank guarantee in order to avoid immediate recovery of the fine imposed on it by Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009, relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries) is suspended until the earlier of the following two events occurs:

                           —

                           maturing of the long-term loans on 11 July 2012,

                           —

                           delivery of the judgment bringing the main proceedings to an end,

                     provided that:

                           —

                           from notification of this order, the applicant does not transfer, either directly or indirectly, its shares in its subsidiary G1 Investments Ltd without the Commission’s prior authorisation;

                           —

                           within a period of one month from notification of this order, the applicant provides to the President of the General Court a written agreement pursuant to which neither its subsidiary G1 Investments nor G1 Investments’ subsidiary, Bounty Commodities Ltd, may transfer their assets to a third party without the Commission’s prior authorisation;

                           —

                           upon notification of this order, the applicant pays to the Commission the sum of EUR 2.1 million;

                           —

                           within a period of one month from notification of this order, then every three months until delivery of judgment in the main action, and upon every event which might have an effect on its future ability to pay the fine imposed, the applicant provides the Commission with a written report on the development of its assets, and more specifically its long-term investments.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-248/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curte de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 23 May 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Rareș Doralin Nilaș, Gicu Agenor Gânscă, Ana Maria Oprean (née Șchiopu), Sergiu Dan Dascăl, Ionuț Horea Baboș

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curte de Apel Cluj (Romania) lodged on 23 May 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Rareș Doralin Nilaș, Gicu Agenor Gânscă, Ana Maria Oprean (née Șchiopu), Sergiu Dan Dascăl, Ionuț Horea Baboș
   (Case C-248/11)
   2011/C 252/26
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curte de Apel Cluj

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Rareș Doralin Nilaș, Gicu Agenor Gânscă, Ana Maria Oprean (née Șchiopu), Sergiu Dan Dascăl, Ionuț Horea Baboș

      Questions referred

               1.

               Can Article 4(1)(14) and Articles 9 to 14 of Directive 2004/39/EC (1) be interpreted as applying both to the main trading market authorised by the CNVM (Comisia Națională a Valorilor Mobiliare [National Securities Commission]) and to the secondary trading market, which has been incorporated into the former since 2005 (omissis) but has continued to be regarded as separate from the regulated market, even though its legal status has not been clarified by way of legislation?

               2.

               Must the provisions of Article 4(1)(14) of Directive 2004/39/EC be interpreted as meaning that the concept of a regulated market does not encompass those trading systems which do not comply with the provisions of Title III of the MIFID directive?

               3.

               Must the provisions of Article 47 of Directive 2004/39/EC be interpreted as meaning that a market which has not been notified by a competent national authority and is not included in the list of regulated markets is not subject to the legal rules applicable to the regulated markets, in particular as regards the rules designed to prevent market abuse under Directive 2003/6/EC?

      (1)  Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC (OJ 2004 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case T-231/13: Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014  — Wepa Lille v Commission (Application for annulment — Environment — Directive 94/62/EC — Packaging and packaging waste — Directive 2013/2/EU — Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound — Lack of direct concern — Inadmissibility)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/53

         Order of the General Court of 7 July 2014 — Wepa Lille v Commission
   (Case T-231/13) (1)

   ((Application for annulment - Environment - Directive 94/62/EC - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 2013/2/EU - Rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 315/89
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Wepa Lille (Bousbecque, France) (represented by: J.-M. Leprêtre and N. Chahid-Nouraï, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Alcover San Pedro and J.-F. Brakeland, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Directive 2013/2/EU of 7 February 2013 amending Annex I to Directive 94/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 2013 L 37, p. 10), in so far as the Commission adds rolls, tubes and cylinders around which flexible material is wound, with the exception of those intended as parts of production machinery and not used to present a product as a sales unit, to the list of examples of products illustrating the application of criteria that define the concept of ‘packaging’.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Wepa Lille is ordered to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case C-233/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale della Spezia (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Simone Gardella v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale della Spezia (Italy) lodged on 14 May 2012 — Simone Gardella v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)
   (Case C-233/12)
   2012/C 217/22
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale della Spezia

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Simone Gardella

      Defendant: Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 20, 45, 48 and 145 to 147 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFEU) be interpreted as precluding national legislation or national administrative practice which do not permit a worker who is a national of a Member State to transfer to the pension scheme of an international body situated in the territory of another Member State of the European Union, where he works and is insured, the pension contributions credited to the social security scheme of his own State, where he was previously insured?

               2.

               As a consequence of the circumstances set out in Question 1, should it be possible to exercise the right to transfer contributions even in the absence of any specific agreement between the Member State of which the worker is a national or the worker’s pension institution, on the one hand, and the international body on the other?’


title: Case T-406/09: Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2014  — Donau Chemie v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC — Price-fixing and market-sharing — Fines — Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation during the administrative procedure — Obligation to state reasons — Equal treatment — Proportionality — Ability to pay)

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 14 May 2014 — Donau Chemie v Commission
   (Case T-406/09) (1)

   ((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Fines - Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Proportionality - Ability to pay))
   2014/C 202/20
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Donau Chemie AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: S. Polster, W. Brugger and M. Brodey, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially, N. von Lingen and M. Kellerbauer, acting as Agents, and by T. Eilmansberger, Professor, and subsequently by N. von Lingen and M. Kellerbauer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 – Calcium carbide and magnesium-based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it relates to the applicant, and, in the alternative, for reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on it by that decision.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Donau Chemie AG under Article 2(c) of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 – Calcium carbide and magnesium-based reagents for the steel and gas industries) at EUR 4,35 million;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders Donau Chemie to bear 90 % of its own costs and to pay 90 % of the European Commission’s costs, and the Commission to bear 10 % of its own costs and to pay 10 % of the costs incurred by Donau Chemie.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 7, 11.1.2003

text:
25.1.2003         EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                         C 19/45
                                                            III
                                                          (Notices)
                                                     (2003/C 19/86)
             Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
          OJ C 7, 11.1.2003
          Past publications
          OJ C 323, 21.12.2002
          OJ C 305, 7.12.2002
          OJ C 289, 23.11.2002
          OJ C 274, 9.11.2002
          OJ C 261, 26.10.2002
          OJ C 247, 12.10.2002
                                               These texts are available on:
                                          EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                            CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 July 2004 in Case T-148/04 R, TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium SA v Commission of the European Communities (Public service contracts — Community tendering procedure — Application for interim measures — Application for suspension of operation and interim measures — Urgency — Absence)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/27

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 27 July 2004
   in Case T-148/04 R, TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium SA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Public service contracts - Community tendering procedure - Application for interim measures - Application for suspension of operation and interim measures - Urgency - Absence)
   (2004/C 262/53)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-148/04 R, TQ3 Travel Solutions Belgium SA, having its registered office in Mechelen (Belgium), represented by R. Ergee and K. Möric, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Parpala and E. Manhaeve, with an address for service in Luxembourg), supported by Wagon-Lits Travel SA, having its registered office in Brussels (Belgium), represented by F. Herbert and H. Van Peer, lawyers, and D. Harrison, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg, application for suspension of the operation of the decisions of the Commission not to award to the applicant item No 1 of the contract covered by Notice No 2003/S 143-129409 for the provision of travel agency services but to award that item to another undertaking, and for an order requiring the Commission to take the measures necessary to suspend the effects of that decision awarding the contract or of the contract concluded following that decision, the President of the Court has made an order on 27 July 2004, in which he:

               1.

               Dismisses the application for interim measures;

               2.

               Reserves the costs.


title: Case T-540/15: Action brought on 18 September 2015 — De Capitani v Parlement

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/57

         Action brought on 18 September 2015 — De Capitani v Parlement
   (Case T-540/15)
   (2015/C 398/72)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Emilio De Capitani (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: O. Brouwer and J. Wolfhagen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision A(2015)4931 of the European Parliament of 8 July 2015 to refuse full access to documents LIBE-2013-0091-02 and LIBE-2013-0091-03 related to the legislative proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation and Training (Europol) and repealing Decisions 2009/371/JHA and 2005/681/JHA;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the procedure, including the costs if any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging an error in law and a misapplication of Article 4(3) first subparagraph 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 L 145, p. 43).
               The applicant puts forward that the Parliament committed an error in law and misapplied Article 4(3) first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001 in that:

                           —

                           access to the requested documents, which are part of the legislative process, does not specifically, effectively and in a non-hypothetical manner undermine the legislative decision-making process;

                           —

                           the Parliament ignores that, notably after the Lisbon Treaty, legislative preparatory documents are subject to the principle of widest possible access;

                           —

                           if Article 4(3) would still be applicable to legislative preparatory works after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Parliament has committed an error in law and misapplied the overriding public interest test.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons in accordance with Article 296 TFUE.
               According to the applicant, the Parliament has failed to state reasons as to why it denied access to the requested documents on the basis of Article 4(3), first subparagraph of Regulation 1049/2001, by not stating reasons as to (i) why full disclosure of the documents requested would effectively and specifically undermine the decision-making process in question, and (ii) why no overriding public interest exists in this case.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 26 October 1995 in Joined Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P: Pesquería Vasco-Montañesa SA (Pevasa) and Compañia Internacional de Pesca y Derivados SA (Inpesca) v. Commission of the European Communities (Fisheries - Community financial aid for the construction of fishing vessels - Action for annulment - Time-limits - Action for damages - Admissibility - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
9. 12 . 95            L^N                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 333/5
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       document serving as invoice has not been issued or the
                          ( Fifth Chamber )                                price has not been received.
                       of 26 October 1995
in Case C-144/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from              (') OJ No C 188 , 9 . 7. 1994 .
the Commissione Tributaria Centrale ): Ufficio IVA di
                   Trapani v. Italittica SpA (')
 (Sixth VAT Directive — Interpretation ofArticle 10 (2) —
 Chargeable event — Scope of the derogation granted to the
                           Member States)
                            ( 95/C 333/08 )
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
                                                                                of 26 October 1995
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be           in Joined Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P: Pesquería
          published in the European Court Reports)                     Vasco-Montañesa SA ( Pevasa ) and Compañía Internacional
                                                                       de Pesca y Derivados SA ( Inpesca ) v. Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (')
In Case C-144/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177            (Fisheries - Community financial aid for the construction of
of the EC Treaty by the Commissione Tributaria Centrale                fishing vessels — Action for annulment — Time-limits —
( Central Tax Court ) for a preliminary - ruling in the                Action for damages — Admissibility — Appeal manifestly
proceedings pending before that court between Ufficio IVA                                          unfounded)
di Trapani and Italittica SpA — on the interpretation of                                          95 /C 333 /09
Article 10 ( 2 ) of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977
( 77/388/EEC ) on the harmonization of the laws of the
Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common
system of value added tax : uniform basis of assessment ( OJ                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
1977 L 145 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed
of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, J.
C. Moitinho de Almeida ( Rapporteur ), C. Gulmann, P. Jann             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
und L. Sevon, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.                       published in the European Court Reports)
Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
on 26 October 1995 , the operative part of which is as
follows :                                                              In Joined Cases C-199/94 P and C-200/94 P : Pesqueria
                                                                       Vasco-Montanesa SA ( Pevasa ), a company incorporated
                                                                       under Spanish law, established in Bermeo ( Spain ),
1 . The third subparagraph of Article 10 (2) of the Sixth              represented by Maria Iciar Angulo Fuertes, of the Biscay
     Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating           Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and
     to turnover taxes — Common system of value added                  Companfa Internacional de Pesca y Derivados SA ( Inpesca ),
     tax : uniform basis of assessment allows the Member               a company incorporated under Spanish law, established in
     States to provide that the receipt of the price is the event      Bermeo ( Spain ), represented by Maria Iciar Angulo Fuertes,
     which, for all supplies of services, renders the tax              of the Biscay Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     chargeable.                                                       at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt
                                                                       — appeals against the order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                       the European Communities ( Second Chamber ) of 28 April
                                                                       1994 in Joined Cases T-452/93 and T-453/93 Pevasa and
2. A Member State which avails itself of the derogation                Inpesca v. Commission [ 1994] ECR 11-229 , seeking: ( 1 ) to
     provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 10 (2)          have that order set aside; ( 2 ) annulment of the decisions of
     of Directive 77/388/EEC is not required to lay down 'a            the Commission of 18 December 1990 and 8 November
     specified period from the date of the chargeable event '           1991 refusing the appellants the financial aid they had
     within which the invoice or document serving as invoice           sought pursuant to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86
     must be issued even where the price has not yet been              of 18 December 1986 on Community measures to improve
     received.
                                                                       and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquaculture sector
                                                                       ( OJ 1986 L 376 , p. 7 ); ( 3 ) an order directing the
                                                                       Commission to take the necessary steps to grant to the
3 . The Member State which avails itself of the derogation             appellants the financial aid requested; and ( 4 ) an order
     in the third subparagraph of Article 10 (2) of Directive          directing the Commission to pay compensation for the
     77/388/EEC is not required to lay down detailed rules             damage caused by its conduct, the other party to the
     for documentation and recording of the completed                  proceedings being the Commission of the European
     service and the payment for it whenever the invoice or            Communities ( Agents : Francisco Jose Santaolalla Gadea
 ---pagebreak--- No C 333/6             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    9 . 12 . 95
and Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues ) — the Court ( Sixth                     and method of manufacture are familiar to consumers,
Chamber ), composed of C. N. Kakouris, President of the                   even though they differ in their secondary characteristics
Chamber, G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F.                      — not, however, decisively as regards type, but simply in
A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; C. O. Lenz,                 the determination of different national varieties and in
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on                   that case the majority of those national varieties are
26 October 1995 , the operative part of which is as                       lawfully produced and.marketed primarily for domestic
follows :                                                                 consumption in the Member State of their origin ?
                                                                          Further, whenever a product is put on the market within
                                                                          the Community for sale for consumption exclusively or
1 . The appeals are dismissed.                                            almost exclusively within one Member State where there
                                                                          is a demand on the part of consumers, especially when
                                                                          the product is known under a traditional name, then,
2 . The appellants are ordered to pay the costs.                          even where the product is also produced in another
                                                                          Member State — not, however, for marketing primarily
                                                                          for domestic consumption, but with the exclusive, or
(') OJ No C 254 , 10 . 9 . 1994 .                                         almost exclusive, intention that it will be exported to the
                                                                          Member State where it is consumed — is the general
                                                                          familiarity of consumers with the product within the
                                                                          Community as regards its general and essential
                                                                          characteristics to be assessed and judged by reference to
                                                                          the consumers within the said Member State where that
                                                                          product is marketed for consumption ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis               3 . If the answer to the previous questions is in the
Epikratias ( Council of State ), Greece, by a decision of that            affirmative, in view of the information set out above
court of 20 June 1995 in the case of Canadane Cheese                      contained in Communication 9539/VI/24 . 2 . 1994 from
Trading AMBA and Adelfi G. Kouri AEVE v. Ministers of                     the Director-General of the Directorate-General for
( 1 ) Commerce, ( 2 ) Finance, ( 3 ) Health, Welfare and Social           Agriculture of the European Communities and the
                  Security, and ( 4 ) Agriculture                         accompanying report and consequently the data
                        ( Case C-3 17/95 )                                extracted — first, as regards the proportionate
                          ( 95/C 333/ 10 )                                relationship between total consumption within the
                                                                          Community of cheese under the name feta and
                                                                          consumption within the Community of cheese under the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    same name manufactured from sheep and goat's milk
European Communities by a decision of the Simvoulio tis                   and by the natural straining method; secondly, as
Epikratias, which was received at the Court Registry on                   regards the proportionate relationship between
10 October 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of                 consumption of feta cheese from sheep and goat's milk
Canadane Cheese Trading AMBA and Adelfi G. Kouri                          within the Community and consumption of the same
AEVE v. Ministers of ( 1 ) Commerce, ( 2 ) Finance,                       product in Greece; and thirdly, as regards the
( 3 ) Health, Welfare^and Social Security, and ( 4 ) Agriculture          proportionate relationship between production,
on the following questions :                                              domestic consumption and export in Denmark, and also
                                                                          in all the other Community countries, of cheese under
                                                                          the name ' feta' made from cow's milk by the
1 . Does it follow from an interpretation of Articles 30 and              ultra-filtration process — is it possible to accept that
      36 of the EEC Treaty that a Member State may refuse to              white cheese under the name 'feta ' may be produced
      allow the use of a certain commercial name for products             in the other Community countries, in particular in
      produced by and exported from another Community                     Denmark, with the almost exclusive aim of exporting it,
      country for circulation within that State where those               as regards intra-Community trade, to Greece which is
      products are so different from the point of view of their           almost the only Community country where cheese is
      composition and method of manufacture from products                 marketed for consumption under the name feta ?
      which are generally known by that name in the                       Furthermore, should general familiarity within the
      Community that they could not be regarded as similar                Community with cheese known under the commercial
      products falling within the same category ?                         name feta, in particular as regards its general and
                                                                          essential characteristics, be assessed and judged by
                                                                          reference to consumers of feta cheese in Greece, for
2 . In that situation, should general familiarity with the                whom ' feta' means white cheese produced from sheep
      product under a particular name within the Community                and or goat's milk by the natural straining method,
      be assessed and judged in relation to consumers within              whereas cheese manufactured from cow's milk by the
      the Member States of the Community, since it is their               ultra-filtration process is so essentially different from
      protection that is sought ? Does 'products generally                the point of view of raw material and method of
      known under a certain name by consumers within the                  manufacture that it is impossible to treat it as a similar
      Community' mean similar products, the general and                   product ? In consequence, is Article 83 of the Greek
      essential characteristics of which as regards composition           Foodstuffs Code, in the version in fbrce when the


20150731017616692015/C 270/142722014CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150611131311Case C-272/14: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Heading 7318 and 8302 — Article specially designed to mount child safety gates
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN1310120150611EN0014131131Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret — Denmark) — Skatteministeriet v Baby Dan A/S
   (Case C-272/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Customs union and Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Tariff classification — Heading 7318 and 8302 — Article specially designed to mount child safety gates’2015/C 270/14Language of the case: Danish
      Referring court

   Vestre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Skatteministeriet

      Defendant: Baby Dan A/S

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Combined Nomenclature listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended, successively, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1214/2007 of 20 September 2007, and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that an article, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a moveable child safety gate to be mounted to a wall or a door frame, must be classified under heading 7318 of the Combined Nomenclature.
   (
         1
      )	OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case T-306/09: Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Val’hor v Commission (State aid — Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented — Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory — Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market — Withdrawal of the decision — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/43

         Order of the General Court of 2 April 2014 — Val’hor v Commission
   (Case T-306/09) (1)

   ((State aid - Framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented - Financing by voluntary levies made compulsory - Decision declaring the aid scheme compatible with the common market - Withdrawal of the decision - No need to adjudicate))
   2014/C 175/58
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Val’hor (Paris, France) (represented by: V. Ledoux and B. Néouze, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: B. Stromsky and C. Urraca Caviedes, subsequently by: B. Stromsky and S. Thomas, and finally by: B. Stromsky, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 7846 final of 10 December 2008 concerning State aid No 561/2008, on the framework system of actions able to be undertaken by the recognised French agricultural interprofessional organisations in favour of members of the agricultural sectors represented

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The European Commission shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case T-333/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014  — Helbrecht v OHIM — Lenci Calzature (SportEyes)

text:
               21.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/29

         Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Helbrecht v OHIM — Lenci Calzature (SportEyes)
   (Case T-333/14)
   2014/C 235/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Andreas Helbrecht (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lenci Calzature SpA (Turchetto-Montecarlo, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in Case R 830/2013-5;

               —

               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Lenci Calzature SpA, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SportEyes’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 7 5 04  525

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lenci Calzature SpA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative marks including the word elements ‘EYE SPORT EYE’, ‘EYE fashion EYE’ and ‘EYE’ for goods in Class 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-56/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2011 — Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main e.G. v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

text:
               14.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 8 February 2011 — Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main e.G. v Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH
   (Case C-56/11)
   2011/C 145/08
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Raiffeisen-Waren-Zentrale Rhein-Main e.G.

      Defendant: Saatgut-Treuhandverwaltungs GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information laid down in the sixth indent of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 2100/94 (1) and Article 9(2) and (3) of Regulation No 1768/95 (2) become established only if the request for information from the holder of the variety right is received by the supplier of processing services before the expiry of the marketing year (or the most recent marketing year where there are several) concerned by the request?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               Is there a request for information ‘complying with the time-limit’ where the holder claims in his request that he has some indication that the supplier of processing services has processed or intends to process for planting harvested material of the protected variety which the farmer named in the request has obtained by planting from propagating material of the protected variety, or must the supplier of the processing services also be furnished with evidence of the claimed indication in the request for information (for example, by providing a copy of the farmer’s statements of planting the product of the harvest)?

               3.

               Can indications establishing the obligation of the supplier of processing services to provide information be derived from the fact that the supplier of processing services, as the agent of the holder of the plant variety right, performs a propagation contract for the production of consumption-related seed of the protected variety, which the holder of the plant variety right has concluded with the farmer effecting propagation, where and because the farmer is in fact granted the possibility, in performing the propagation contract, of using some of the propagation seed for planting?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1768/95 of 24 July 1995 implementing rules on the agricultural exemption provided for in Article 14 (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1995 L 173, p. 14)


title: Case C-429/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal d'instance de Saintes by judgment of that court of  16 November 2005  in Max Rampion and Marie-Jeanne Rampion (née Godard) v Franfinance SA and K par K SAS

text:
               11.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 36/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal d'instance de Saintes by judgment of that court of 16 November 2005 in Max Rampion and Marie-Jeanne Rampion (née Godard) v Franfinance SA and K par K SAS
   (Case C-429/05)
   (2006/C 36/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the tribunal d'instance de Saintes of 16 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 2 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Max Rampion and Marie-Jeanne Rampion (née Godard) and Franfinance SA and K par K SAS on the following questions:

               1.

               Are Articles 11 and 14 of Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 (1) to be interpreted as allowing courts to apply the rules on interdependence between a credit agreement and a contract for the supply of goods or services that is financed by that credit in cases where the credit agreement does not refer to the goods being financed or has been concluded in the form of a credit facility without reference to the goods being financed?

               2.

               Does Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 have an objective which extends beyond consumer protection alone to the organisation of the market and allows courts to apply of their own motion the provisions which flow from it?

      (1)  Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48).


title: Case T-572/12: Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Nissan Jidosha/OHIM (CVTC)

text:
               16.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/19

         Action brought on 21 December 2012 — Nissan Jidosha/OHIM (CVTC)
   (Case T-572/12)
   2013/C 79/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Nissan Jidosha KK (Yokohama-shi, Japan) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister and D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of appeal’s Decision of 6 September 2012, (Case R 2469/2011-1);

               —

               Order that the Respondent pays the Appellant its costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CVTC’ for goods in classes 7, 9 and 12

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected partially the CTM renewal

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Art 50 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-355/15: Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2016 — Alpex Pharma v EUIPO — Astex Pharmaceuticals (ASTEX) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark ASTEX — Earlier EU word mark ALPEX — No genuine use of the earlier mark — Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 — Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/40

         Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2016 — Alpex Pharma v EUIPO — Astex Pharmaceuticals (ASTEX)
   (Case T-355/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark ASTEX - Earlier EU word mark ALPEX - No genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 - Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 419/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Alpex Pharma SA (Mezzovico-Vira, Switzerland) (represented by: C. Bacchini, M. Mazzitelli and E. Rondinelli, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Plesanton, United States)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 April 2015 (Case R 593/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Alpex Pharma and Astex Pharmaceuticals.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Alpex Pharma, SA, to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 294, 7.9.2015.


title: Case C-660/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Achim Kollroß v Finanzamt Dachau

text:
               20.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 21 December 2016 — Achim Kollroß v Finanzamt Dachau
   (Case C-660/16)
   (2017/C 086/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Achim Kollroß

      Defendant: Finanzamt Dachau

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are the requirements as to the certainty that a supply will take place, as a condition of the deduction of input tax on a payment on account within the meaning of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-107/13 Firin, (1) to be determined purely objectively or from the point of view of the person having made the payment on account in the light of the circumstances apparent to him?

               2.

               Are the Member States, taking into account the fact that the chargeability of tax and the right of deduction arise at the same time, in accordance with Article 167 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (2) and the regulatory powers which they enjoy under Article 185(2) and Article 186 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, entitled to make the adjustment of both tax and the deduction of input tax subject to a refund of the payment on account?

               3.

               Must the tax office responsible for a person who has made a payment on account refund the value added tax to that person where the latter cannot recover the payment on account from the recipient of that payment? If so, must this take place as part of the tax assessment procedure or is a separate equitable procedure sufficient for this purpose?

      (1)  ECLI:EU:C:2014:151.

      (2)  OJ L 347, p. 1.


title: Case C-128/06: Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-128/06) (1)

   (2006/C 294/78)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 108, 06.05.2005.


20150731062617132015/C 270/382792015TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150526313111Case T-279/15: Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN3110120150526EN0038311311Action brought on 26 May 2015 — Pirelli Tyre v OHIM (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic)
   (Case T-279/15)2015/C 270/38Language of the case: Italian
      Parties

      Applicant: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy) (represented by: D. Caneva and G. Fucci, lawyers)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Design at issue: Community design (Tyres for vehicle wheels, pneumatic) — Community design No 4 692-0001

      Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 January 2015 in Case R 1285/2014-3

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

            —

            annul the contested decision;

            —

            grant the application for restitutio in integrum made by Pirelli Tyre SpA in accordance with Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs, by declaring that the payment of the renewal fee relating to the second five-year period by way of a withdrawal from current account No 000069 under the name of Bugnion SpA is lawful and that, therefore, the right to the design at issue is still valid;

            —

            order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Pirelli Tyre SpA in the present proceedings.

      Plea in law

            —

            Infringement of Article 67 of Regulation No 6/2002/EC on Community designs.


title: Case C-223/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Gorizia by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case of Azienda Agricola Bressan Aldo against Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Gorizia by order of that court of 7 April 2004 in the case of Azienda Agricola Bressan Aldo against Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia
   (Case C-223/04)
   (2004/C 228/37)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Gorizia (District Court, Gorizia, Italy) of 7 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 28 May 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Azienda Agricola Bressan Aldo against Agenzia per le erogazioni in Agricoltura (AGEA) and Cospalat Friuli Venezia Giulia on the following question:

               —

               Since the legal nature of the additional levy on milk and milk products must therefore be determined in the light of the provisions of Community law under which that levy was introduced and the basic rules governing its application were established (in particular Regulation No 856/84 (1) of 31 March 1984 and Regulation No 3950/92 2 of 28 December 1992), must Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 and Articles 1 to 4 of Regulation No 3950/92 (2) of 28 December 1992 be interpreted as meaning that the additional levy on milk and milk products is in the nature of an administrative penalty with the result that producers are liable to pay it only where quantities allocated have been exceeded by them intentionally or as a result of negligence?

      (1)  OJ L 90 of 1. 4. 1984, p. 10.

      (2)  OJ L 405 of 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.


title: Case C-428/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Unión General de Trabajadores de la Rioja UGT-RIOJA v Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Unión General de Trabajadores de la Rioja UGT-RIOJA v Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca
   (Case C-428/06)
   (2006/C 326/62)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unión General de Trabajadores de la Rioja UGT-RIOJA

      Defendants: Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya, Diputación Foral de Vizcaya, Cámara de Comercio, Industria y Navegación de Bilbao, Confederación Empresarial Vasca
   Question referred
   Must Article 87(1) EC be construed as meaning that, by providing for a rate of tax lower than the basic rate set in Spanish State legislation and for deductions from the amount of tax payable which do not exist in State tax legislation, provisions in the field of taxation adopted by the Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia amending Articles 29(1)(a), 37 and 39 of the Provincial Law on Company Tax, which take effect in the jurisdiction of that infra-State autonomous body, must be regarded as selective and as covered by the definition of State aid enshrined in Article 87(1) EC and, accordingly, must be notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 88(3) EC?


title: Case C-151/12: Action brought on 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/16

         Action brought on 29 March 2012 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-151/12)
   2012/C 174/25
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Valero Jordana and B. Simon, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, with regard to its intracommunal river basins, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(8), 7(2) and 10(1) and (2), and Sections 1.3 and 1.4 of Annex V, of Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy; (1)

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that the Kingdom of Spain has incorrectly transposed the provisions of Directive 2000/60/EC referred to in the form of order set out in the application, inasmuch as the Spanish legislation applies only to intercommunal river basins in Spain [whose waters flow through more than one Autonomous Community]. Consequently, those provisions have not been transposed into Spanish law as regards intracommunal river basins (whose waters flow through only one Autonomous Community).

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1.


title: Case C-357/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Gelvora’ v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unfair commercial practices — Directive 2005/29/EC — Scope — Debt collection agency — Consumer credit — Assignment of debt — Nature of the legal relationship between the agency and the debtor — Article 2(c) — Concept of ‘product’ — Recovery measures taken in parallel to the intervention of a bailiff)

text:
               11.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 300/6

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — UAB ‘Gelvora’ v Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba
   (Case C-357/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Unfair commercial practices - Directive 2005/29/EC - Scope - Debt collection agency - Consumer credit - Assignment of debt - Nature of the legal relationship between the agency and the debtor - Article 2(c) - Concept of ‘product’ - Recovery measures taken in parallel to the intervention of a bailiff))
   (2017/C 300/08)
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UAB ‘Gelvora’

      Defendant: Valstybinė vartotojų teisių apsaugos tarnyba

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as meaning that the legal relationship between a debt collection agency and the debtor, who has defaulted under a consumer credit agreement and whose debt has been assigned to that agency, falls within the material scope of the directive. The practices in which that agency engages in order to recover that debt fall within the concept of ‘product’ within the meaning of Article 2(c) of that directive. In that regard, the fact that the existence of the debt was confirmed by a court decision, and that that decision was passed to a bailiff for enforcement, is without consequence.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.