C 19/26                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                               25.1.2003
        Removal from the register of Case C-254/01 ( 1)                      Removal from the register of Case C-227/02 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 19/45)                                                       (2003/C 19/47)
By order of 20 November 2002 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities          By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-254/01:              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Commission of the European Communities v Republic of                 from the register of Case C-227/02: Commission of the
Finland.                                                             European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 245 of 01.09.2001.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 180, 27.07.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case C-280/01 ( 1)
                         (2003/C 19/46)                                      Removal from the register of Case C-268/02 ( 1)
                                                                                (2003/C 19/48)
By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-280/01
(Referral for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal            By order of 19 November 2002 the President of the Court of
(England & Wales) (Civil Division)): Brian Watson v First            Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Choice Holidays & Flights Ltd, Aparta Hotels Caledonia SA.           from the register of Case C-268/02: Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
( 1) OJ C 289, 13.10.2001.
                                                                     (1 ) OJ C 219, 14.09.2002.


title: Case F-88/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Kubanksi v Commission of the European Communities (Temporary staff — Article 5(3)(a) of the Staff Regulations — Article 82(2) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities — Withdrawal of the decision to employ the applicant as a member of the temporary staff in grade B*4 — Level of qualifications required to be employed in grade B* — New contract staff contract)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2006 — Kubanksi v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-88/05) (1)

   (Temporary staff - Article 5(3)(a) of the Staff Regulations - Article 82(2) of the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities - Withdrawal of the decision to employ the applicant as a member of the temporary staff in grade B*4 - Level of qualifications required to be employed in grade B* - New contract staff contract)
   (2006/C 331/104)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Gabrielle Kubanksi (Leggiuno, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi and D. Bono, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.Currall and M. Velardo, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the Commission's decision revoking the decision to employ the applicant as a member of the temporary staff in grade B*4
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 16 December 2004 terminating the temporary staff contract signed on 4 October 2004 by Ms Kubanski;

               2.

               dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 280, 12.11.2005, p. 20 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-353/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case F-86/08: Action brought on 22 October 2008 — Voslamber v Commission

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/43

         Action brought on 22 October 2008 — Voslamber v Commission
   (Case F-86/08)
   (2008/C 327/82)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Dietrich Voslamber (Freiburg, Germany) (represented by: L. Thielen, Rechtsanwalt)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Subject-matter and description of the proceedings
   Annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 July 2008, in so far as it rejected the applicant's application for primary sickness insurance cover for his spouse.
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of DG ADMIN.B of the European Commission of 9 July 2008 against the applicant;

               —

               Uphold the applicant's application that in his case his spouse is entitled to primary insurance through the JSIS;

               —

               Reserve the applicant all rights to provide a more detailed statement of reasons for this application;

               —

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


title: Case T-1/10: Action brought on 4 January 2010 — PPG and SNF v ECHA

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/48

         Action brought on 4 January 2010 — PPG and SNF v ECHA
   (Case T-1/10)
   2010/C 63/85
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group GEIE (PPG) (Bruxelles, Belgium), SNF SAS (Andrézieux, France) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem, P. Sellar and R. Cana, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the contested act;

               —

               order ECHA to pay the costs of these proceedings;

               —

               take such other or further measures as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicants seek the annulment of the decision of the European Chemicals Agency (‘ECHA’) of 7 December 2009 regarding the identification of acrylamide (EC No 201 — 173 — 7) as a substance meeting the criteria set out in Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (1) (hereinafter ‘REACH’), in accordance with Article 59 of REACH.
   On the basis of the contested decision, brought to the applicants attention by means of an ECHA press release of 7 December 2009, the substance acrylamide was included in the list of 15 new chemical substances of the Candidate list of substance of very high concern. The applicants argue that, as a result, they will be required to provide certain information relating to the level of acrylamide in their products which they sell to customers in order for those customers to comply with notification and information obligations imposed on them by REACH. Further, they may also be required to update the safety data sheets and/or communicate to their customers information on the identification of acrylamide as a substance of very high concern.
   The applicants submit that the contested act is unlawful because it is based on an underlying assessment of acrylamide that is scientifically and legally flawed. According to their submissions the defendant committed manifest errors of appraisal in adopting the contested act. In particular, the applicants submit that the contested act infringes the applicable rules established for the identification of substances of very high concern under REACH.
   In summary, the applicants claim that the contested act effectively identifies acrylamide as a substance of very high concern on the basis that acrylamide is a chemical substance. However, the applicants claim that acrylamide is used exclusively as an intermediate and is therefore exempt from Title VII concerning Authorisations of REACH, according to Articles 2(8) and 59 of the said Regulation.
   Furthermore, the applicants put forward that the contested act was adopted without sufficient evidential basis and therefore, the defendant committed a manifest error of appraisal.
   Finally, the applicants claim that the contested act infringes, besides the requirements of REACH, the principles of proportionality and equal treatment.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1)


title: Case T-41/08: Action brought on 1 February 2008 — Vakakis v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/34

         Action brought on 1 February 2008 — Vakakis v Commission
   (Case T-41/08)
   (2008/C 92/70)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Vakakis International — Symvouli gia Agrotiki Anaptixi AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. O'Connor, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               To declare this application admissible;

               —

               to annul the unreasoned decision of the European Commission of 6 December 2007 (Reference No A3 TF TCC(2007)106233) not to invite the consortium led by Vakakis International SA to be interviewed in respect of the service tender procedure ‘Technical Assistance to Support Rural Development Policy’ number EuropeAid/125241/C/SER/CY;

               —

               to annul the decision of the European Commission of 21 December 2007 (Reference No A3 TF TCC(2007)106667) to reject the tender submitted by Vakakis International SA on the basis that it did not meet the technical requirements;

               —

               pursuant to Article 65(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, to request the Commission to provide certain documents in relation to the activities of the evaluation committee established to review the tenders submitted in respect of the EuropeAid/125241/C/SER/CY tender procedure as well as the establishment of the short list of tenderers;

               —

               to make any additional order which the Court considers necessary;

               —

               to order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims that the Commission's letter of 6 December 2007 informing the applicant it would not be invited to interview constitutes a decision which lacks sufficient reasoning in breach of Article 253 EC. Moreover, the applicant submits that this stage is an essential element of the tender procedure to which all tenderers, even those failing to meet the technical standard required, should be invited in order to maintain a competitive environment. Furthermore, the applicant argues that the said decision is legally flawed since it is based on non-compliance with the administrative criteria instead of non-compliance to the technical standard required. This amounts, according to the applicant, to a misuse of powers conferred to the Commission in the framework of the tenders' evaluation procedure.
   In addition, and with regards to both the above-mentioned decision and the decision of 21 December 2007, the applicant submits that they are incompatible with the terms of the Practical Guide to Contract Procedures for EC External actions. Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission decision of 21 December 2007 purported to justify an unreasoned earlier decision excluding the applicant from the tender and therefore is legally flawed.


title: Case F-59/14: Action brought on 24 June 2014 — ZZ v European Commission

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/48

         Action brought on 24 June 2014 — ZZ v European Commission
   (Case F-59/14)
   (2014/C 431/76)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: H. Mannes, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Civil service — Application for compensation for the material and non-pecuniary loss, together with default interest, which the applicant has suffered by means of loss of an opportunity to obtain a post with the EU, based on the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 29 September 2010 in Case F-5/08 Brune v Commission.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               Order the defendant to pay compensation to the applicant for the material and non-pecuniary loss, together with default interest, which the latter has suffered as a result of his unlawful exclusion from open competition EPSO/AD/26/05;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               —

               As a precaution, give judgment in default.


title: Judgment of the Court of 7 May 2010 in Case E-8/09 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts — Judgment by default)

text:
               25.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/20

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 7 May 2010
   in Case E-8/09
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland

      (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts — Judgment by default)

   2010/C 320/09
   In Case E-8/09, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Republic of Iceland — Application for a declaration that by failing to adopt, or to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority of, the measures necessary to implement the Act referred to at point 5 of Chapter III of Annex II to the EEA Agreement, i.e. Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to lifts, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time limit prescribed, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Act and Article 7 of the EEA Agreement, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Thorgeir Örlygsson (Judge-Rapporteur), and Henrik Bull, Judges, gave judgment on 7 May 2010, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               declares that, by failing to adopt, within the time limit prescribed, the measures necessary to implement Directive 2006/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on machinery, and amending Directive 95/16/EC, as adapted to the EEA Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, the Republic of Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement;

               2.

               orders the Republic of Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case T-270/05: Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Matthias Ghem against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               17.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 229/31

         Action brought on 8 July 2005 by Matthias Ghem against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-270/05)
   (2005/C 229/66)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 July 2005 by Matthias Ghem, resident in Woluwé-Saint-Pierre (Belgium), represented Lucas Vogel, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March 2005 by which it dismissed the applicant's application of 24 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the applicant in his capacity as a contract staff under the terms of the contract which entered into effect on 16 September 2004;

               —

               order the defendant to pay EUR 25 000 by way of damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further specifications;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to those put forward in Case T-253/05 Fernandez Tunon v Commission.


title: Case C-116/09: Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 7 December 2010 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Ried i.I. (Austria)) — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Formato, Lenka Rohackova, Torsten Kuntz, Gardel Jong Aten, Hubert Kanatschnig, Jarmila Szabova, Zdenka Powerova, Nousia Nettuno

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/24

         Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 7 December 2010 — (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bezirksgericht Ried i.I. (Austria)) — Criminal proceedings against Antonio Formato, Lenka Rohackova, Torsten Kuntz, Gardel Jong Aten, Hubert Kanatschnig, Jarmila Szabova, Zdenka Powerova, Nousia Nettuno
   (Case C-116/09) (1)

   2011/C 63/45
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 6.6.2009.


title: Case C-325/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 1 July 2015 — Z.Ś., Z.M., M.P. v X w G.

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 1 July 2015 — Z.Ś., Z.M., M.P. v X w G.
   (Case C-325/15)
   (2016/C 145/16)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Rejonowy we Wrocławiu

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Z.Ś., Z.M., M.P.

      Defendant: X w G.
   The Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) made an order on 18 February 2016 in which it answered the first question submitted for a preliminary ruling by the referring court. The second question was found to be manifestly inadmissible.


title: Case C-452/05: Action brought on  19 December 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/17

         Action brought on 19 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-452/05)
   (2006/C 48/33)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by S. Pardo Quintillán and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, as it is not able to ensure that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load entering all treatment plants is at least 75 % for total phosphorus and at least 75 % for total nitrogen, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations by reason of a misapplication of Article 5(4) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (1);

               2.

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Luxembourg stated in 1999 that, instead of applying more stringent treatment to all the treatment plants within its territory, it was choosing to rely on Article 5(4), which amounts to making an overall assessment of the level of reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus as regards all the agglomerations in Luxembourg.
   However, according to the most recent information received from Luxembourg concerning the overall percentage of reduction of the load entering all treatment plants, the conditions for application of Article 5(4) have not been fulfilled.
   Therefore, the Commission is obliged to conclude that the Luxembourg authorities have failed to establish that the minimum percentage of reduction of the overall load of nitrogen and phosphorus is at least 75 % as regards each of the two parameters; consequently, the conditions for application of Article 5(4) have not been satisfied.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40.


C 312/8               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                10.10.98
context of the selection of employees for dismissal on                     Removal from the register of Case C-359/96 (1)
social criteria if substantially more women than men are                                     (98/C 312/15)
employed part-time in a sector?
(1) OJ L 39, 14.2.1976, p. 40.                                       By order of 28 May 1998 the President of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-359/96 (reference for
                                                                     a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
                                                                     Pavia): Criminal proceedings against Luigi Bazzan,
                                                                     Agostino Traverso and Adriano Calvini.
Action brought on 1 September 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic              (1) OJ C 9, 11.1.1997.
                       (Case C-326/98)
                         (98/C 312/14)
An action against the French Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                        Removal from the register of Case C-335/96 (1)
1 September 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                                              (98/C 312/16)
Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Court-Castera, a
national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in                     By order of 9 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,                 Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                            removal from the register of Case C-335/96: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v. Hellenic Republic.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 388, 21.12.1996.
Ð declare that, by requiring the words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ
     sociale' (social security levy') to appear on the
     labelling of alcoholic beverages from other Member
     States, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under Article 30 of the Treaty,
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-318/97 (1)
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                                                (98/C 312/17)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     By order of 15 June 1998 the President of the Court of
Under French law, a contribution to the national sickness            Justice of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) has
insurance fund is levied on alcoholic beverages having an            ordered the removal from the register of Case C-318/97:
alcohol content in excess of 25 % by volume. The                     Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of
contribution is paid by wholesalers and by producers                 Spain.
selling such beverages direct to retailers or consumers, and
the words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ sociale' must appear in the         (1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
form of a circle on the labelling of those beverages.
As regards products coming from other Member States,
the labelling obligation referred to above, failure to
comply with which may lead to a criminal prosecution,
constitutes a restriction on the free movement of goods                    Removal from the register of Case C-398/97 (1)
and thus falls, as a measure having equivalent effect,
within the scope of Article 30 of the Treaty.                                                (98/C 312/18)
A labelling obligation intended to inform consumers by
                                                                     By order of 17 June 1998 the President of the Court of
pointing out the risks of alcohol abuse and the total cost
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
borne by the social security system may be regarded as
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-398/97: Commission
legitimate, provided however that the measure in question
                                                                     of the European Communities v. Italian Republic.
is appropriate to the achievement of that objective. In the
Commission's view, that criterion is not fulfilled by the
words cotisation seÂcuriteÂ sociale'.                               (1) OJ C 26, 24.1.1998.


title: Case F-58/08: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2009 — Avogadri and Others v Commission

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/86

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 September 2009 — Avogadri and Others v Commission
   (Case F-58/08) (1)

   2009/C 267/158

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the name of Ms Monica Leva be removed from the list of applicants.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008, p. 74.


title: Case C-169/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain)) — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 93/13/EEC — Article 7 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Consumer contracts — Mortgage loan agreement — Unfair terms — Mortgage enforcement proceedings — Right to an appeal)

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/25

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 July 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Castellón (Spain)) — Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García v Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA
   (Case C-169/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Article 7 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Consumer contracts - Mortgage loan agreement - Unfair terms - Mortgage enforcement proceedings - Right to an appeal))
   2014/C 315/38
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Castellón

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Juan Carlos Sánchez Morcillo, María del Carmen Abril García

      Defendant: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as precluding a system of enforcement, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that mortgage enforcement proceedings may not be stayed by the court of first instance, which, in its final decision, may at most award compensation in respect of the damage suffered by the consumer, inasmuch as the latter, the debtor against whom mortgage enforcement proceedings are brought, may not appeal against a decision dismissing his objection to that enforcement, whereas the seller or supplier, the creditor seeking enforcement, may bring an appeal against a decision terminating the proceedings or ordering an unfair term to be disapplied.

      (1)  OJ C 175, 10.6.2014.


title: Case T-360/15: Action brought on 1 July 2015 — Dr Vita v OHIM (69)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/50

         Action brought on 1 July 2015 — Dr Vita v OHIM (69)
   (Case T-360/15)
   (2015/C 279/63)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Dr Vita sp. z o.o. (Olsztyn, Poland) (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

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

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark including the number ‘69’ — Application No 12 794 566

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 April 2015 in Case R 2513/2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and Article 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case T-503/08: Action brought on 20 November 2008 — Rundpack v OHIM (Representation of a tumbler)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/48

         Action brought on 20 November 2008 — Rundpack v OHIM (Representation of a tumbler)
   (Case T-503/08)
   (2009/C 44/85)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Rundpack (represented by R. Chmilewsky-Lehner, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision (R 1400/2006-1) of OHIM of 3 September 2008 and refer the trade mark application No 003 317 591 back to OHIM to allow for the registration process to continue, and order OHIM to bear all the costs associated with the case, in particular including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

               —

               In the alternative, annul the contested decision of OHIM of 3 September 2008 and refer the trade mark application No 003 317 591 in respect of a reduced list of goods back to OHIM to allow for the registration process to continue, and order OHIM to bear all the costs associated with the case, in particular including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: the three-dimensional mark ‘BECHER RUND’ in respect of goods in Classes 16, 17 and 20 (Application No 3 317 591).

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in that the trade mark applied for has the necessary minimum distinctive character.

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


title: Case F-74/10: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Kimman v Commission (Staff cases — Civil servants — Article 43 of the Staff Regulations — Article 45 of the Staff Regulations — 2009 appraisal — Classification in a level of performance — Decision awarding promotion points — Appraisal report — Opinion of the ad hoc group — Infringement of the duty to give reasons — Plea raised of its own motion — Burden of proof)

text:
               12.5.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/24

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 29 September 2011 — Kimman v Commission
   (Case F-74/10) (1)

   (Staff cases - Civil servants - Article 43 of the Staff Regulations - Article 45 of the Staff Regulations - 2009 appraisal - Classification in a level of performance - Decision awarding promotion points - Appraisal report - Opinion of the ad hoc group - Infringement of the duty to give reasons - Plea raised of its own motion - Burden of proof)
   2012/C 138/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Eugène Émile Kimman (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and P. Pecho, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to annul the applicant’s staff report for 2008

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear a quarter of the applicant’s costs, in addition to its own costs;

               3.

               Orders the applicant to pay three quarters of his own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 301, 6.11.2010, p. 63.


title: Case C-643/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varneski administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 December 2011 — LVK-56 ЕООD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

text:
               17.3.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varneski administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 15 December 2011 — LVK-56 ЕООD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite
   (Case C-643/11)
   2012/C 80/13
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Varneski administrativen sad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: LVK-56 ЕООD

      Defendant: Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i upravlenie na izpalnenieto’ — grad Varna pri Tsentralno Upravlenie na Natsionalnata Agentsia za Prihodite

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax cover all cases of incorrectly charged VAT, including cases in which an invoice showing VAT was issued without a chargeable event having occurred? If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, do Articles 203 and 273 require the Member States to lay down express rules to the effect that VAT shown on an invoice in respect of which no supply has taken place is payable, or is it sufficient for them to transpose the general rule in the Directive to the effect that that tax is payable by any person who enters it on an invoice?

               2.

               In the light of recital 39 in the preamble to Directive 2006/112 and with a view to ensuring the accuracy of deductions, do Articles 73, 179 and 203 of Directive 2006/112 require that, where VAT is shown on an invoice without a chargeable event having occurred, the revenue authorities must correct the tax base and the tax charged?

               3.

               Can the special measures provided for in Article 395 of Directive 2006/112 consist in a tax practice such as that in the main proceedings, whereby, for the purposes of verifying deductions, the revenue authorities check only the deduction made, while the tax on the output supplies is regarded as being necessarily payable solely because it was shown on an invoice? If that question is answered in the affirmative, is it permissible under Article 203 of Directive 2006/112 — and, if so, in what circumstances — for VAT on the same transaction to be collected once from the provider of the goods or services, because he entered the tax on an invoice, and a second time from the purchaser of the goods or recipient of the services, inasmuch as he is refused the right to deduct?

               4.

               Is a tax practice such as that in the main proceedings — whereby the purchaser of taxable goods or the recipient of taxable services is refused the right to deduct on the ground that there is ‘no evidence that the supply took place’, without any account being taken of findings already made to the effect that a right to claim tax has accrued against the provider of the goods or services and that tax is payable by him, bearing in mind that, up to the point at which the accrual of the right to deduct was evaluated, the tax assessment notice in question had not been adjusted and no reason to adjust it in the manner prescribed by the State had emerged or been established — in breach of the non-cumulative nature of VAT and at odds with the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and fiscal neutrality?

               5.

               Is it permissible under Articles 167 and 168(a) of Directive 2006/112 for the purchaser of taxable goods or the recipient of taxable services who fulfils all the conditions laid down in Article 178 of the Directive to be refused the right to deduct after a tax assessment notice which was issued to the provider of the goods or services and has become final did not correct the VAT charged on that supply because ‘no chargeable event occurred’, but, rather, the right to claim tax was recognised as having accrued and was taken into consideration in determining the net tax due for the tax period in question? Is it relevant to the answer to that question that the provider of the goods or services did not submit any accounting documents during the tax assessment and that the net tax due for that period was determined solely by reference to the information given in the VAT declarations and in the sales and purchase books?

               6.

               Depending on the answers to the above questions, are Articles 167 and 168(a) of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the neutrality of VAT requires that a taxable person must be able to deduct the tax charged on supplies made to him?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case C-350/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 July 2010 — Nordea Pankki Suomi Oyj

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 12 July 2010 — Nordea Pankki Suomi Oyj
   (Case C-350/10)
   ()
   2010/C 246/55
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Nordea Pankki Suomi Oyj

      Question referred

   Must points 3 and 5 of Article 13B(d) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that the swift services described in section 1 of this order used in payment transactions and securities transaction settlements between financial institutions are exempt from value added tax?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment


title: Case C-26/02: Action brought on 31 January 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Communities

text:
16.3.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 68/9
—     Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                      Action brought on 31 January 2002 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                                                                                Spain
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-28/02)
Article 249 EC, which provides that a directive is to be binding
as to the result to be achieved on each Member State to which
it is addressed, implies an obligation that the Member States
comply with the time-limits for transposition prescribed by                                      (2002/C 68/18)
directives. In the present case the prescribed period expired on
18 January 2001 without the Italian Republic having adopted
the provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
to in the form of order sought by the Commission.
                                                                        An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 31 Janu-
                                                                        ary 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Gregorio Valero Jordana, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, also of the Commission’s
Action brought on 31 January 2002 by the Kingdom of                     Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Luxembourg.
 Spain against the Council of the European Communities
                         (Case C-26/02)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2002/C 68/17)
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
                                                                              regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
An action against the Council of the European Communities                     to comply with Directive 1999/94/EC(1) of the European
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                       Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999
Communities on 31 January 2002 by the Kingdom of Spain,                       relating to the availability of consumer information on
represented by R. Silva de Lapuerta, acting as Agent, with an                 fuel economy and CO2 emissions in respect of the
address for service in Luxembourg.                                            marketing of new passenger cars, or, in any event, by
                                                                              failing to have informed the Commission of any such
                                                                              laws, regulations or administrative provisions, the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                              that Directive;
—     annul the point relating to anchovies referred to in note
      (2) to the item relating to stocks of ‘Anchovy; Zones: IX,
      X, CECAF 34.1.1’ (EC waters) contained in Annex ID to             —     order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
      Council Regulation (EC) No 2555/2001 (1) of 18 Decem-
      ber 2001 fixing for 2002 the fishing opportunities and
      associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups
      of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for
      Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch
      are required; and                                                 Pleas in law and main arguments
—     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
                                                                        Under Article 12 of Directive 1999/94/EC, the Kingdom of
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Spain should have brought into force the measures necessary
                                                                        to comply with the Directive by 18 January 2001 and should
                                                                        have informed the Commission thereof.
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-22/01 (2).
                                                                        (1) OJ L 12, 18.1.2000, p. 16.
(1) OJ L 347 of 31.12.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 18.


title: Case T-181/06: Action brought on 6 July 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               2.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 212/34

         Action brought on 6 July 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-181/06)
   (2006/C 212/62)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Giacomo Aiello, avvocato dello stato)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision 2006/334/EC of 28 April 2006 (C (2006) 1702) in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Italian Republic under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Italian Republic has brought an action before the Court of First Instance challenging Commission Decision C (2006) 1702 of 28 April 2006 in so far as it excludes from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the applicant under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges infringement and misapplication of:

               —

               Article 11(1)(c)(4), Article 13(2), Article 15(4)(a), Article 30(1) and (2), and Article 51 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (OJ 1996 L 297 of 2.11.1996, p. 19);

               —

               the third subparagraph of Article 17(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 659/97 of 16 April 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards intervention arrangements in the fruit and vegetables sector (OJ 1997 L 100 of 17.4.1997, p. 22);

               —

               Article 8(2)(c) and (d), Article 8(4)(b) and Article 16(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 609/2001 of 28 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards operational programmes, operational funds and Community financial assistance, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 411/97 (OJ 2001 L 90 of 30.3.2001, p. 4);

               —

               Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 412/97 of 3 March 1997 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards the recognition of producer organisations (OJ 1997 L 62 of 4.3.1997, p. 16);

               —

               Articles 6 and 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391 of 31.12.1992. p. 36).


title: Case C-458/08: Action brought on 21 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/19

         Action brought on 21 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-458/08)
   (2008/C 327/31)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and P. Guerra e Andrade, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that the Portuguese Republic, by imposing in respect of the provision of building services in Portugal the same requirements as in respect of establishment, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC;

               —

               an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Portuguese law on access to construction activity and continued operation therein (Decree-Law No 12/2004) makes the exercise of construction activity in Portugal subject to a licence.
   No undertaking, without exception, may carry on in Portugal building, rebuilding, extension, alteration, repair, conservation, cleaning, restoration or demolition work or, in general terms, any work whatsoever related to construction without prior authorisation issued by the Portuguese authorities.
   The Portuguese competition legislation prohibiting undertakings, including Community undertakings, from providing construction services in Portugal without prior authorisation to enter the construction industry issued by the Portuguese authorities constitutes an infringement of Article 49 EC.
   The requirements for access to the building industry, as laid down in the Portuguese legislation, are establishment requirements. The Portuguese legislation does not distinguish establishment from the provision of services of a temporary nature.
   In order to provide services in Portugal undertakings established in another Member State are obliged to satisfy all the conditions necessary for establishment, which means in practice that there is no solution for those construction companies other than to establish themselves in Portugal. Such a requirement seriously restricts freedom to provide services.
   The requirements in relation to continuing to operate also amount to restrictions of the freedom to provide services, for they make it impossible to provide construction services of a temporary nature.
   The reasons given by the Portuguese State in order to justify the restrictions in question have not been substantiated and cannot be taken into consideration.


title: Case C-509/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by decision of that court of 10 December 2004 in the case of Magpar VI BV of Naarden against Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               5.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/15

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by decision of that court of 10 December 2004 in the case of Magpar VI BV of Naarden against Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-509/04)
   (2005/C 31/31)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands), Netherlands, of 10 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Magpar VI BV of Naarden against Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 7(1)(bb) of Directive 69/335/EEC, (1) as amended by Directive 73/79/EEC (2), to be interpreted as meaning that if a company, within five years after the acquisition of shares in the course of a share merger that is exempt from capital duty, ceases to hold those shares because the company in which the shares were held has been the subject of a merger, the requirements referred to in the above-mentioned provision of the Directive are to apply to the shares in the acquiring company?

               2.

               Is it relevant to question 4.1 that the company in which the shares were held ceased to exist as result of the coming into force of a legal merger with another company (Article 2:311(1) BW), so that it is not possible to speak of a disposal of shares in a literal sense?

      (1)  Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ English special edition: Series I 1969(II) p. 412)

      (2)  Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 varying the field of application of the reduced rate of capital duty provided for in respect of certain company reconstruction operations by Article 7(1)(b) of the Directive concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1973 L 103, p. 13).


title: Case T-1/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 March 2014  — Aluminios Cortizo and Cortizo Cartera v Commission (Application for interim measures  — State aid  — Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain economic interest groupings (EIG) and their investors  — Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system)  — Application for suspension of operation  — Failure to comply with the procedural requirements  — Inadmissibility)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/40

         Order of the President of the General Court of 7 March 2014 — Aluminios Cortizo and Cortizo Cartera v Commission
   (Case T-1/14 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - State aid - Aid granted by the Spanish authorities to certain economic interest groupings (EIG) and their investors - Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements for the purchase of ships (Spanish tax lease system) - Application for suspension of operation - Failure to comply with the procedural requirements - Inadmissibility))
   2014/C 135/51
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicants: Aluminios Cortizo, SA (Padrón, Spain) and Cortizo Cartera, SL (Padrón) (represented by: A. Beiras Cal, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, M. Afonso, É. Gippini Fournier and P. Němečková, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of, inter alia, Commission Decision C(2013) 4426 final of 17 July 2013 on State aid SA.21233 C/2011 (ex NN/2011, ex CP 137/2006) — Tax regime applicable to certain finance lease agreements.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-207/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg Aigen, Austria) — Schwaninger Martin Viehhandel — Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen (Regulation (EC) No 615/98 — Export refunds — Welfare of live bovine animals during transport — Directive 91/628/EEC — Applicability of the rules relating to the protection of animals during transport — Rules relating to journey times and rest periods and to the transportation of bovine animals by sea to a destination outside of the Community — Feeding and watering of the animals during the journey)

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg Aigen, Austria) — Schwaninger Martin Viehhandel — Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen
   (Case C-207/06) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 615/98 - Export refunds - Welfare of live bovine animals during transport - Directive 91/628/EEC - Applicability of the rules relating to the protection of animals during transport - Rules relating to journey times and rest periods and to the transportation of bovine animals by sea to a destination outside of the Community - Feeding and watering of the animals during the journey)
   (2008/C 223/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg Aigen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Schwaninger Martin Viehhandel — Viehexport

      Defendant: Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19) and Chapter VII 48 point 7(a) and (b) of the annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17) and the second indent of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of that directive — Applicability of animal welfare legislation in relation to journey times and rest periods when transporting bovine animals by sea to a destination outside of the Community in a vehicle loaded on to a ferry without unloading the animals — Failure to state in the route plan the times at which the animals transported were fed and watered during the journey
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport cannot be interpreted as meaning that point 48(7)(b) of the annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, must be applied to the case of transport by sea on a link between a geographical point of the European Community and a geographical point in a third country by means of vehicles loaded onto vessels without unloading of the animals.

               2.

               Point 48(7)(a) of the annex to Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of transport by sea between a geographical point of the European Community and a geographical point situated in a third country by means of vehicles loaded onto vessels without unloading the animals, the duration of the transport does not have to be taken into account if the animals are transported in accordance with the conditions laid down in point 48(3) and (4) of the annex to Directive 91/628, apart from journey times and rest periods. If that is the case, a further period of transport by road may begin immediately after unloading the lorry at the port of destination in the third country, in accordance with point 48(4)(d).

               3.

               A route plan containing a pre-typed statement indicating that during the ferry journey animals are fed and watered ‘in the evenings and mornings, at midday, and in the evenings and mornings’ may satisfy the requirements of Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, provided that it is established that the animals were in fact fed and watered as stated. If the competent authority considers, in the light of all the documents submitted by the exporter, that the requirements of that directive have not been complied with, it is for that authority to assess whether that non compliance had an effect on the welfare of the animals, whether such non compliance may, where appropriate, be remedied and whether it must result in the export refund being forfeited, reduced or retained.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case T-171/13: Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Benelli Q.J. v OHIM — Demharter (MOTOBI B PESARO) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark MOTOBI B PESARO — Genuine use of the mark — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Evidence submitted against the application for revocation after the expiry of the period set for that purpose — Failure to take account thereof — Discretion of the Board of Appeal — Provision to the contrary — Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account — Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 — Rule 50(1), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)

text:
               14.3.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 98/30

         Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2016 — Benelli Q.J. v OHIM — Demharter (MOTOBI B PESARO)
   (Case T-171/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community figurative mark MOTOBI B PESARO - Genuine use of the mark - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Evidence submitted against the application for revocation after the expiry of the period set for that purpose - Failure to take account thereof - Discretion of the Board of Appeal - Provision to the contrary - Circumstances precluding additional or supplementary evidence from being taken into account - Article 76(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Rule 50(1), third subparagraph, of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))
   (2016/C 098/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Benelli Q.J. Srl (Pesaro, Italy) (represented by: P. Lukácsi and B. Bozóki, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially F. Mattina and subsequently P. Bullock, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Demharter GmbH (Dillingen, Germany) (represented by: A. Kohn, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2013 (Case R 2590/2011-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Demharter GmbH and Benelli Q.J. Srl.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Benelli Q.J. Srl to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-112/14: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement — National tax legislation — Attribution of gains to participators in close companies — Different treatment of resident and non-resident companies — Wholly artificial constructions — Proportionality)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/9

      Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 13 November 2014 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
      (Case C-112/14) (1)

      (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU - Articles 31 and 40 of the EEA Agreement - National tax legislation - Attribution of gains to participators in close companies - Different treatment of resident and non-resident companies - Wholly artificial constructions - Proportionality)
      (2015/C 016/12)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Armati, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie, acting as Agent)

         Operative part of the judgment

      The Court:

                  1)

                  Declares that, by adopting and maintaining tax legislation concerning the attribution of gains to participators in non-resident companies which provides for a difference in treatment between domestic and cross-border activities, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

                  2)

                  Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 184, 16.6.2014.


title: Case T-559/08: Action brought on 17 December 2008 — STIM d'Orbigny v Commission

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/61

         Action brought on 17 December 2008 — STIM d'Orbigny v Commission
   (Case T-559/08)
   (2009/C 44/105)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Société de travaux industriels et maritimes d'Orbigny (STIM d'Orbigny SA) (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Froment-Meurice, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested Commission decision

               —

               Annul Article 1 of the contested decision declaring: (1) compensation paid by the French State to SNCM of EUR 53,48 million an unlawful but compatible State aid; (2) the negative sale price of SNCM of EUR 158 million as not constituting State aid; and (3) restructuring aid of EUR 15,81 million an unlawful but compatible State aid;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay STIM d'Orbigny the costs and expenses arising from the contested decision.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission decision C(2008) 3182 final of 8 July 2008, in which the Commission stated that:

               —

               compensation paid by the French Republic to the Société Nationale Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (‘SNCM’) of EUR 53,48 million in respect of public service obligations constituted State aid which was unlawful, but compatible with the common market;

               —

               the negative sale price of EUR 158 million for SNCM, the undertaking by the Compagnie Générale Maritime et Financière (‘CGMF’) of social measures towards employees for an amount of EUR 38.5 million and the related and concomitant recapitalisation of SNCM by CGMF for EUR 8,75 million did not constitute State aid; and

               —

               restructuring aid of EUR 15,81 million which the French Republic put into operation in favour of SNCM constituted State aid which was unlawful, but compatible with the common market.

         In support of its action, the applicant makes three pleas, claiming:

               —

               insufficient statement of reasons, in that the Commission:

                           —

                           did not define the market under consideration or explain the position of rival undertakings;

                           —

                           did not reply to certain arguments of the Compagnie Méridionale de Navigation operating on the market in question; and

                           —

                           did not find incompatibility with the common market of the capital contribution exceeding EUR 15,81 million declared compatible with the common market;

               —

               manifest errors of assessment concerning:

                           —

                           application of Article 86(2) EC to the capital contribution of EUR 53,48 million by way of public service compensation, inasmuch as that sum doubly compensated the same public service obligations, giving rise to over-compensation and the rewarding of deficient management and the inability of SNCM to improve its productivity in an effective manner;

                           —

                           the negative sale price of EUR 158 million for SNCM, which cannot be free of elements of State aid; the Commission made an incorrect interpretation of the conduct of a private investor in a market economy and erred in holding that the risk of cumulation of liabilities against the State in the event of liquidation justified regarding the sale of SNCM at a negative price as the least costly solution;

                           —

                           the capital contribution by CGMF of EUR 8,75 million, the Commission not having taken into consideration all the economic, financial and legal factors, and not having proved that the contribution by CGMF did not constitute State aid;

                           —

                           the current account contribution by CGMF of EUR 38,5 million by way of social measures towards employees, the latter placing SNCM in a more favourable position than what would have resulted from the market;

                           —

                           the State aid of EUR 22,52 million, none of the grounds permitting the conclusion that that aid was compatible with Community guidelines having been verified in this case;

               —

               infringement of the principles of proportionality and of the unitary nature of aid, in that the aid recipient SNCM did not substantially contribute to the restructuring from its own resources or from external financing obtained on market conditions, and that the measures taken in 2006 constituted unlawful support of an undertaking by the French Republic.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 October 2004 in Case C-148/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München): Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v Portbridge Transport International BV (Brussels Convention — Articles 20 and 57(2) — Failure by the defendant to enter an appearance — Defendant domiciled in another Contracting State — Geneva Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road — Conflict between conventions)

text:
               8.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/13

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 28 October 2004
   in Case C-148/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München): Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v Portbridge Transport International BV (1)

   (Brussels Convention - Articles 20 and 57(2) - Failure by the defendant to enter an appearance - Defendant domiciled in another Contracting State - Geneva Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road - Conflict between conventions)
   (2005/C 6/22)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-148/03: reference for a preliminary ruling pursuant to the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, made by the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany), by decision of 27 March 2003, received at the Court on 31 March 2003, in the proceedings between Nürnberger Allgemeine Versicherungs AG and Portbridge Transport International BV — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 October 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 57(2)(a) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic, by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and by the Convention of 29 November 1996 on the Accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden, should be interpreted as meaning that the court of a Contracting State in which a defendant domiciled in another Contracting State is sued may derive its jurisdiction from a specialised convention to which the first State is a party as well and which contains specific rules on jurisdiction, even where the defendant, in the course of the proceedings in question, submits no pleas on the merits.

      (1)   OJ C 146 of 21.6.2003.


title: Case F-6/07: Action brought on 26 January 2007 — Suvikas v Council

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/45

         Action brought on 26 January 2007 — Suvikas v Council
   (Case F-6/07)
   (2007/C 56/85)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Risto Suvikas (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: M.-A Luxas, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Advisory Selection Committee not to include the applicant's name on the list of the best candidates for selection concerning Council vacancy notice B/024;

               —

               annul that list and the Council decisions to recruit the candidates included on it to the posts to be filled and not to recruit the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay to the applicant, in compensation for the damage to his career, the difference for six years between the remuneration which he would have received if he had been recruited and that received on another basis, and EUR 25 000 for his non-material loss;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   On 14 October 2005, the Council published a vacancy notice for eight temporary staff posts to work as Duty Officer. The applicant, who had already performed these functions as a national expert on secondment (SNE), applied. On 20 February 2006, he was informed that he had not been included on the short-list following the selection procedure.
   In support of his action, the applicant relies on three pleas.
   In the context of the first, he asserts the infringement of paragraph 4 of the notice and of the principles of objectivity, transparency and equal treatment. In particular, whilst external candidates were evaluated by the Advisory Selection Committee on the basis of interviews and the examination of their qualifications, candidates who had already worked as duty officers as SNEs were assessed on the basis of the opinions of their superiors as to the way that they had carried out their tasks. It is claimed that the Council has not proved that that alleged irregularity did not affect the results of the selection.
   In the context of the second plea, the applicant relies on the infringement of his rights of defence in that, internal candidates having been assessed according to the procedure described above, it is claimed that the opinions of their hierarchical superiors should have been communicated to them in advance, so that they could defend themselves.
   The third, based on the infringement of Article 9 and 12(1) of the Conditions of Employment of other Servants and the principles of impartiality, objectivity and equal treatment, is made up of three parts.
   Under the first, the applicant asserts that certain members of the Selection Committee found themselves in a situation of conflict of interest in relation to certain candidates and that, because of this, certain candidates were assessed outside of the selection procedures provided for in the vacancy notice.
   Under the second part, the applicant maintains that the Committee assessed the qualifications of the candidates without taking into account the level, duration and specific nature of their training and work experience.
   Under the third part, the applicant asserts that, even if the assessment of internal candidates on the basis of the opinion of their hierarchical superiors could be accepted in principle, the procedure would still be irregular in so far as the said opinions were not correctly taken into account when the list of successful candidates was drawn up, particularly because of the abovementioned conflict of interest.


title: Case C-498/09 P: Appeal brought on 3 December 2009 by Thomson Sales Europe against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-225/07 and T-364/07 Thomson Sales Europe v Commission

text:
               27.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 80/7

         Appeal brought on 3 December 2009 by Thomson Sales Europe against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 29 September 2009 in Joined Cases T-225/07 and T-364/07 Thomson Sales Europe v Commission
   (Case C-498/09 P)
   2010/C 80/13
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Thomson Sales Europe (represented by: F. Goguel and F. Foucault, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment of the Court of 29 September 2009;

               —

               annul Decision REM No 03/05 of the European Commission of 7 May 2007;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appellant relies, in essence, on three pleas in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court failed to have regard to the rules on jurisdiction set out in Article 225 EC, in so far as it delivered a decision on the merits of the appellant’s application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 20 July 2007 not confirming entitlement to a waiver of post-clearance recovery of import duties on colour television receivers manufactured in Thailand, even though it had previously held that the aforementioned application was inadmissible on the ground that the letter in question was not capable of producing legal effects.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court infringed the rights of the defence and made a manifest error in the legal characterisation of the facts inasmuch as it refused the appellant’s request to make all the evidence relied on available to the parties and, moreover, held that Thomson had displayed obvious negligence since, as an experienced operator, it should have asked the Commission for specific information about the possibility of continuing to declare colour televisions manufactured in Thailand as being of Thai origin after beginning to be supplied with tubes originating in Korea and Malaysia.
   By its third ground of appeal, which is in two parts, Thomson claims that the Court infringed Article 239 of the Customs Code (1) with regard to the possibility of full or part repayment of import or export duties paid, or of remission of a certain amount of customs debt. The appellant submits, first, that the Court erred in law in so far as it dismissed its application after considering only the condition relating to the absence of deception or of negligence, without first investigating the condition relating to the existence of a special situation.
   Second, the Court made an error in the legal characterisation of the facts, and thus an error of law, in considering that the conditions for remission under Article 239 of the Customs Code had not been fulfilled. According to the appellant, it does indeed satisfy the requirements of that provision, since the circumstances of the case are such as to amount to a special situation in so far as the Commission changed its practice in respect of the interpretation of the relevant provisions without giving operators sufficient warning.
   Thomson submits, moreover, that it had no doubt that its operations were being conducted properly, as it was convinced that a single anti-dumping duty, fixed in practice by agreement with the Commission, applied to the whole of its production. It could not, therefore, be regarded as having been negligent.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).


title: Case T-285/10: Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (CHEMOCONTROL)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/49

         Action brought on 25 June 2010 — Milux v OHMI (CHEMOCONTROL)
   (Case T-285/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/87
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Milux Holding S.A. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: J. Bojs, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2010 in case R 1444/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CHEMOCONTROL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 10 and 44

      Decision of the examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the principle of non-discrimination to the facts of this case; in the alternative, infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trade mark applied for does not possess sufficient inherent distinctiveness.


title: Case C-465/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  23 March 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione) — Honyvem Informazioni Commerciali Srl v Mariella De Zotti (Independent commercial agents — Directive 86/653/EEC — Entitlement of a commercial agent to an indemnity after termination of the contract)

text:
               3.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 131/19

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 March 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione) — Honyvem Informazioni Commerciali Srl v Mariella De Zotti
   (Case C-465/04) (1)

   (Independent commercial agents - Directive 86/653/EEC - Entitlement of a commercial agent to an indemnity after termination of the contract)
   (2006/C 131/34)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte suprema di cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Honyvem Informazioni Commerciali Srl

      Defendant: Mariella De Zotti
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte Suprema di Cassazione — Interpretation of Articles 17 and 19 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — Right of a commercial agent to an indemnity or damages on termination of contract
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 19 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents must be interpreted as meaning that the indemnity for termination of contract which results from the application of Article 17(2) of the directive cannot be replaced, pursuant to a collective agreement, by an indemnity determined in accordance with criteria other than those prescribed by Article 17, unless it is established that the application of such an agreement guarantees the commercial agent, in every case, an indemnity equal to or greater than that which results from the application of Article 17.

               2.

               Within the framework prescribed by Article 17(2) of Directive 86/653, the Member States enjoy a margin of discretion which they may exercise, in particular, in relation to the criterion of equity.

      (1)  OJ C 31 of 05.02.2005.


title: Case C-88/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 27 February 2008 — David Hütter v Technische Universität Graz

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 27 February 2008 — David Hütter v Technische Universität Graz
   (Case C-88/08)
   (2008/C 128/36)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberster Gerichtshof
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: David Hütter

      Defendant: Technische Universität Graz
   Question referred
   Are Articles 1, 2 and 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation to be understood as precluding national legislation (1) (here: Paragraphs 3(3) and 26(1) of the Austrian Vertragsbedienstetengesetz 1948 (1948 Law on contractual employees)) which excludes accreditable previous service from being taken into account in the determination of the reference date for salary increments in so far as such service was completed before the person concerned reached the age of 18 years?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Action brought on 9 January 1998 by Carlo Chiappe and Others against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-13/98)

text:
C 94/32                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28.3.98
Ð order, further, the defendants jointly to pay the costs.          Luigi Pecetti, Nicola Maria Spadaccino, Giovanni Tria,
                                                                    Vito Stefano Tria and Nicola Utzeri, represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Gregorio Leone, of the Milan Bar, and Mark Clough, of
                                                                    the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service
                                                                    in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
The applicants, all of which are companies whose                    Grand-Rue.
principal business is that of customs forwarding services,
carried on either by the partners of the company or by
customs agents employed by them, seek compensation for              The applicants claim that the Court should:
what they claim to be the abrupt removal, with effect
from January 1993, of customs formalities for intra-                Ð declare the defendants liable, within the meaning of
Community trade, and from 1 January 1995 in respect of                  the second paragraph of Article 215 of the Treaty, for
the EFTA countries, the result of which was essentially the             the damage caused to the applicant companies by the
closure of customs posts and the dismissal of customs                   repercussions on their activities as authorised customs
officials.                                                              agent as a result of the provisions adopted by the
                                                                        Council when organising the free movement of goods
                                                                        within the single market from 1 January 1993 without
The applicants observe that Article 8 a of the Treaty of
                                                                        taking the measures necessary to protect the interests
Rome, introduced by the Single European Act, introduced
                                                                        of the applicants, as well as for the fact that the
the concept of the internal market into Community law
                                                                        Commission has not proposed, nor has the Council
and that as a result of the secondary legislation adopted in
                                                                        adopted, the measures necessary for the legitimate
order to organise the free movement of goods according to
                                                                        protection of the rights of the applicants,
the new guidelines, the intra-Community customs activity
was removed.
                                                                    Ð order, moreover, the defendants jointly to pay the
                                                                        costs.
The applicants point out, first, that the Commission failed
to propose, and the Council failed to adopt, transitional
measures which would have enabled those affected to                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
adapt gradually to the new situation and, secondly, that
the measures adopted by the Community bodies to                     The pleas-in-law and main arguments are identical with
overcome those difficulties were in no way compensatory             those relied on in Case T-12/98 Argon srl and Others v.
in nature.                                                          Council and Commission.
The applicants further state that, in the context of the
Community legislative action which caused the damage,
the Community authorities disregarded the acquired rights
of the customs and forwarding agents as well as the
principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and         Action brought on 14 January 1998 by Centre d'Action
non-discrimination.                                                 Culturelle du Sart-Tilman asbl against the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities
In the alternative, the applicants, in claiming no-fault                                   (Case T-15/98)
liability, also allege not only that the principle of equality                              (98/C 94/79)
in bearing public burdens has been breached but also that
the conduct of the Community bodies is tantamount to
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
depriving them of their acquired rights.
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 14 January
                                                                    1998 by Centre d'Action Culturelle du Sart-Tilman asbl,
                                                                    established in LieÁge (Belgium), represented by Bernadette
Action brought on 9 January 1998 by Carlo Chiappe and               Graulich, of the LieÁge Bar, with an address for service in
Others against the Council of the European Union and the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Arendt, 7 Val
          Commission of the European Communities                    Sainte-Croix.
                        (Case T-13/98)
                         (98/C 94/78)                               The applicant claims that the Court should:
                (Language of the case: Italian)                     Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant BEF
                                                                        12 323 006,
An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was                      Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant interest at
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              the rate of 8 % on that amount as from 18 October
Communities on 9 January 1998 by Carlo Chiappe, Giulio                  1990,
Comoglio, Sergio De Bona, Piero Luciano Galbiati,
Umberto Greco, Mario Malugani, Alessandro Michelucci,               Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-246/08: Action brought on 25 June 2008 — Melli Bank v Council

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/34

         Action brought on 25 June 2008 — Melli Bank v Council
   (Case T-246/08)
   (2008/C 197/59)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Melli Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Gordon, QC, J. Stratford, Barrister, R. Gwynne and T. Din, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul paragraph 4, section B, of the annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it relates to Melli Bank plc;

               —

               Grant such further or other relief as may seem just and appropriate in the circumstances;

               —

               Order that the Council pay the Bank's costs of this application.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 (1) implementing Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2) in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.
   The applicant seeks the annulment of paragraph 4, section B, of the Annexe, in so far as it relates to the applicant, on the grounds that it is unlawful in two respects.
   First, the applicant claims that the contested decision is disproportionate in that freezing the funds and economic assets of the applicant (i) has no rational relationship with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation or its funding and (ii) it is not the least restrictive mean of exercising vigilance against the applicant or of pursuing the aim of preventing the funding of nuclear proliferation.
   Second, the applicant claims that the contested decision violates the principle of non-discrimination in that, on one hand, the applicant is in the same position to other UK subsidiaries of the Iranian banks, and is in materially comparable position to other UK banks including UK banks trading with Iran, but has been treated in a different manner and, on the other hand, is in a significantly different position to another bank designated by the United Nations Security Council but has been treated in the same manner.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1).