title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 27 June 1996 in Case C-240/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Metz (France)): Criminal proceedings against Rémy Schmit (Free movements of goods - Motor vehicles - National system of model-year dates - Discrimination against parallel imports)

text:
9 . 11 . 96            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 336/3
     that of taxpayers who are resident or treated as such to        — the financial years of the two companies coincide,
     justify that difference in treatment.
                                                                     — the subsidiary 's annual accounts for the financial year in
3 . Article 52 of the Treaty precludes a Member State from                 question were adopted by the general meeting before
     taking account, by means ofa higher rate of income tax,               completion of the audit of the parent company 's annual
     of the fact that, by virtue of the relevant provisions of             accounts for that year,
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
     on the application of social security schemes to                — the subsidiary 's annual accounts for the financial year in
     employed persons and their families moving within the                 question, as adopted by its general meeting, show that
     Community, concerning the determination of the                        on the subsidiary 's balance-sheet date — namely the last
     applicable legislation, the taxpayer is not obliged to pay            day of that financial year — the subsidiary appropriated
     contributions to its national social insurance scheme.                profits to the parent company, and
     The fact that, also by virtue of Regulation (EEC)
     No 1408/71 , the taxpayer is insured under the social           — the national court is satisfied that the subsidiary 's annual
     security scheme of the State in which he resides is                   accounts for the financial year in question give a true and
     irrelevant in that regard.                                            fair view of its assets and liabilities, financial position
                                                                           and profit or loss,
(>) OJ No C 132 , 14 . 5 . 1994 .
                                                                     it is not contrary to the rule laid down in Article 31 (1 ) (c)
                                                                     (aa) of the fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July
                                                                     1 978 based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the annual
                                                                     accounts of certain types of companies, as amended by the
                                                                     seventh Council Directive 83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on consolidated
                        ( Fifth Chamber)                             accounts, for the national court to consider that the profits
                        of 27 June 1996                              in question must be entered in the parent company 's balance
                                                                     sheet for the financial year in respect of which they were
in Case C-234/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from            appropriated by the subsidiary.
the Bundesgerichtshof): Waltraud Tomberger v. Gebriider
                  von der Wettern GmbH (')
                                                                     (') OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
(Directive 78/660/EEC — Annual accounts — Balance                    ( 2 ) OJ No L 222 , 1978 , p . 11 .
            sheet — Date at which profit is made)                    ( 3 ) OJ No L 193 , 1983 , p . 1 .
                          ( 96/C 336/05 )
                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber )
In Case C-234/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177                                   of 27 June 1996
of the EC Treaty from the Bundesgerichtshof ( Federal Court          in Case C-240/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
of Justice ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings             the Cour d'Appel , Metz ( France )): Criminal proceedings
pending before that court between Waltraud Tomberger v.                                   against Remy Schmit ( 1 )
Gebriider von der Wettern GmbH — on the interpretation
of Articles 31 ( 1 ) and 59 of the fourth Council Directive          (Free movements of goods — Motor vehicles — National
78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54 ( 3 ) ( g) of         system of model-year dates — Discrimination against
the Treaty on the annual accounts of certain types of                                         parallel imports)
companies ( 2 ), as amended by the seventh Council Directive                                    ( 96/C 336/06 )
83/349/EEC of 13 June 1983 based on Article 54 ( 3 ) ( g ) of
the Treaty on consolidated accounts ( 3 ), the Court ( Fifth                          (Language of the case: French)
Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ),
President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
de Almeida, C. Gulmann and M. Wathelet, Judges; G.
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
Tesauro, Advocate-General ; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 June 1996 in which it
rules :                                                              In Case C-240/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty by the Cour d'Appel ( Cour of Appeal ),
Where:                                                               Metz ( France ), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
                                                                     proceedings before that court against Remy Schmit on
— one company (the parent company) is the sole                       Article 30 of the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
    shareholder in another company (the subsidiary), and             composed of D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
    controls it,                                                    J. -P. Puissochet, C. Gulmann, P. Jann and M. Wathelet
                                                                     ( Rapporteur ), Judges, Advocate-General : M. B. Elmer,
— under national law, the parent company and the                     Registrar : L. Hewlett, Administrator, gave a judgment on
    subsidiary form a group ,                                        27 June 1996 , the operative part of which is as follows :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 336/4            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9 . 11 . 96
Article 30 of the EC Treaty precludes national legislation                 tests have already been carried out in that other Member
concerning model-year dates for motor vehicles which                       State and their results are available to those authorities
causes the administrative authorities and traders of the                   or may at their request be placed at their disposal.
Member State in question to consider that, where two motor
vehicles of the same model and make are sold in that                  (>) OJ No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .
Member State after 30 June, only the vehicle which was the
subject of a parallel import would be prohibited from
holding itself out as being of the following model year.
(') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 2 July 1996
                                                                            in Case C-473/93 : Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1 )
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                         ( First Chamber )                            Freedom of movement for persons — Employment in the
                                                                                public service)
                         of 27 June 1996
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/08 )
in Case C-293/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Turnhout ): criminal
        proceedings against Jacqueline Brandsma (')                                    (Language of the case: French)
(Free movement ofgoods — Derogations — Protection of
public health — Powers of the Member States —                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                              Biocides)                                         published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 96/C 336/07 )
                                                                      In Case C-473/93 : Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Communities ( Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Grand
                                                                      Duchy of Luxembourg ( Agent : Alain Lorang) —
                                                                      Application for a declaration that, by maintaining a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          nationality requirement in relation to workers who are
         published in the European Court Reports)                     nationals of other Member States as regards access to civil
                                                                      servants ' or public employees ' posts in the public sectors of
In Case C-293/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177           research , teaching, health, inland transport, posts and
of the EC Treaty by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg ( First           telecommunications, and in the water, gas and electricity
Instance Court ), Turnhout ( Belgium ), for a preliminary             distribution services, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
ruling in the criminal proceedings against Jacqueline                 failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 48 of the EC
Brandsma on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the           Treaty and Articles 1 and 7 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
EC Treaty, the Court ( First Chamber ) composed of:                   No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon                   for workers within the Community ( 2 ) — the Court
( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate-General :            composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
N. Fennelly, Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                Kakouris , D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
Administrator, has given a judgment on 27 June 1996 in                ( Presidents    of    Chambers ),    G.    F. Mancini ,     F.   A.
which it rules :                                                      Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn,
                                                                      C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), H.
1 . A legal provision of a Member State prohibiting                   Ragnemalm , L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges;
    pesticides for non-agricultural use which have not been           Advocate-General : P. Leger, Registrar: D. Loutermann
    previously authorized from being marketed, acquired,              Hubeau , Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on
    offered, put on display or sale, kept, prepared,                  2 July 1996 , in which it:
    transported, sold, disposed of for valuable
    consideration or free of charge, imported or used,                1 . Declares that, in not restricting the requirement of
    constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a                 Luxembourg nationality to access to civil servants ' and
    quantitative restriction within the meaning ofArticle 30               public employees ' posts involving direct or indirect
    of the EC Treaty.                                                      participation in the exercise of powers conferred by
                                                                           public law and duties designed to safeguard the general
2 . National legislation prohibiting the marketing of a                    interests of the State or of other public authorities in the
     biocidal product containing dangerous substances, such                public sectors of research, education, health , inland
    as the product at issue, without prior authorization from              transport, posts and telecommunications, and in the
     the competent authorities is justified pursuant to                    water, gas and electricity distribution services, the
    Article 36 of the EC Treaty, even if that product has                  Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
    already been authorized for sale in another Member                     obligations pursuant to Article 48 of the EC Treaty and
    State. The competent authorities are not, however,                     Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of
    entitled unnecessarily to require technical or chemical                15 October 1 968 on freedom of movement for workers
    analyses or laboratory tests when the same analyses or                 within the Community;


title: Case F-118/10: Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Psarras v ENISA

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/34

         Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Psarras v ENISA
   (Case F-118/10)
   2011/C 63/61
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Aristidis Psarras (Heraklion, Greece) (represented by: E. Boigelot and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decision to dismiss the applicant from his duties as accountant for the Agency and to appoint another person to that post. Secondly, application for payment to the applicant of a sum by way of compensation for the loss suffered owing to the contested acts and the harassment of which he claims to have been a victim.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of ENISA's Management Board of 7 February 2010 to dismiss the applicant from his duties as accountant for the Agency with immediate effect and to appoint another person to the post of accountant for an indefinite period;

               —

               As a preparatory measure, annul Annex 1 of the decision of 7 February 2010 mentioned above; that Annex 1 is the proposal of the Executive Director to the Management Board to permanently assign the accountant's tasks to another person and to dismiss the applicant from his duties as accountant;

               —

               If necessary, annul the decision of 1 March 2010 consequently adopted by the Executive Director to reassign the applicant to a new post;

               —

               As a result of those annulments, reinstate the applicant to the post of accountant for the Agency;

               —

               Order ENISA to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 10 000 by way of compensation, firstly, for the loss suffered owing to the contested decisions, and, secondly, for the non-material damage suffered because of the psychological harassment of which he was a victim, subject to increase during the proceedings;

               —

               order ENISA to pay the costs.


title: Case C-202/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Peter Rebbe, Hans-Peter Rebbe, Harmine Rebbe v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               17.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 231/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 13 April 2017 — Peter Rebbe, Hans-Peter Rebbe, Harmine Rebbe v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-202/17)
   (2017/C 231/15)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hannover

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Peter Rebbe, Hans-Peter Rebbe, Harmine Rebbe

      Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the absence on sick leave of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? (1) In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               2.

               In the event that the first question is answered in the negative: is the spontaneous absence, due to unauthorised work stoppage under employment law or collective agreements (‘wildcat strike’), of a significant part of an operating air carrier’s staff for flight operation an extraordinary circumstance under Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004? In the event that the second question is answered in the affirmative: how high must the rate of absence be to constitute such an extraordinary circumstance?

               3.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: must the extraordinary circumstance itself have been present at the time the flight was cancelled or is the operating air carrier entitled to devise a new flight plan pursuant to economic considerations?

               4.

               In the event that the first or the second question is answered in the affirmative: does the avoidability criterion relate to the extraordinary circumstance or, rather, to the consequences of the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Case T-344/02: Action brought on 21 November 2002 by Air One S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
8.2.2003                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 31/17
and territories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumu-                   Pleas in law and main arguments
lation of origin (OJ 2000 L 246, p. 64) and secondly for
damages — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber),
composed of M. Jaeger, President, K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi,                  The applicant, a public limited company whose seat is
Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a           in Athens, has as its business the production, packaging,
judgment on 14 November 2002, in which it:                                   standardisation and preservation of, and trade in, agricultural
                                                                             products. It was founded pursuant to an improvement plan
                                                                             drawn up under Regulations (EEC) No 355/77 and No 866/90
1.    Orders that Cases T-332/00 and T-350/00 be joined for the              for co-financing by the European Community and the Greek
      purposes of the judgment;                                              State.
2.    Dismisses the applications;
                                                                             The applicant submits that, following the adoption of a
3.    Orders each of the applicants to bear its own costs, and pay           measure relating to the market by the Greek authorities, it was
      those incurred by the Commission in the case it has brought,           reduced to an extremely poor financial position and its
      including, in the case of the applicant in Case T-350/00, those        operation became problematic.
      incurred by it in the proceedings for interim relief;
                                                                             By its application, it accuses the Commission of inaction and
4.    Orders the interveners to bear their own costs.                        delaying tactics since, notwithstanding the applicant’s repeated
                                                                             requests and its approaches to various Community authorities,
                                                                             the Commission failed:
( 1) OJ C 4 of 6.1.01 and C 45 of 10.2.01.
                                                                             —      to abolish the Community financial assistance under
                                                                                Article 23 of Regulation No 4253/88 (1);
                                                                             —      to initiate, against the Hellenic Republic, the procedure
                                                                                under Article 226 EC for breach of Community law.
Action brought on 28 October 2002 by the company                             In this connection, the applicant submits that the Commission
Tipopiitiria Thivas A.E. — Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipo-                     infringed Regulation No 4253/88, exceeded the limits of
piisis kai Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton against the Com-                   its discretion and offended against the principle of equal
            mission of the European Communities                              treatment.
                           (Case T-334/02)                                   (1 ) Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988,
                                                                                laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the
                           (2003/C 31/25)                                         different Structural Funds between themselves and with the
                                                                                operations of the European Investment Bank and the other
                                                                                existing financial instruments (OJ No L 374, 31.12.1998, p. 1).
                     (Language of the Case: Greek)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 October 2002 by the company
Tipopiitiria Thivas A.E. — Viomikhania Siskevasias Tipopiisis                Action brought on 21 November 2002 by Air One S.p.A.
kai Sintirisis Agrotikon Proïonton, whose seat is in Athens                     against the Commission of the European Communities
(Greece), represented by Ioannis Stamoulis, of the Athens Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Case T-344/02)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                               (2003/C 31/26)
—     allow the present application challenging the failure                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
      of the European Commission to abolish Community
      assistance;
—     declare that the European Commission has unlawfully                    An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
      failed to abolish the Community financial assistance;                  the European Communities on 21 November 2002 by the
                                                                             abovementioned applicant, represented by G. Belotti, against
—     order the European Commission to pay the costs.                        the Commission of the European Communities.
 ---pagebreak--- C 31/18                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         8.2.2003
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                     to the payment of the third, it did not take into
                                                                                consideration certain consequences of the unsuccessful
                                                                                outcome of the restructuring plan and of the infringement
—     annul the contested decision                                              of certain conditions.
      (a)   both in so far as the Commission took formal notice            —    The aid used to cover Alitalia’s financial losses after the
            of the payment of the second tranche of aid to                      restructuring plan had expired constituted unauthorised
            Alitalia, which was authorised by Decision 97/789/                  new aid. In any event, it constituted a misuse of aid, since
            EC of 15 July 1997 and confirmed by                                 it was used to cover financial losses occurring after the
            Decision 2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001, and decided                   end of the restructuring plan, that is to say for a use
            not to object to the payment of the third tranche;                  which had not been authorised by the Commission.
      (b) and in so far as it established that the new recapitalis-        —    As regards the defendant’s determination that the new
            ation of Alitalia in the sum of EUR 1 432 million                   recapitalisation of Alitalia in the sum of
            notified by the Italian authorities on 29 and 30 April              EUR 1 432 million notified by the Italian authorities on
            2002 does not constitute State aid;                                 29 and 30 April 2002 does not constitute State aid, it
                                                                                should be stated, in particular in the light of the private
                                                                                investor principle and the absence of analysis of the
—     in the alternative, annul the decision on one of the two                  prospects of profitability of the undertaking, that the
      grounds mentioned above;                                                  Commission erred in not considering the following
                                                                                matters: notwithstanding the existence of option rights,
                                                                                private shareholders in Alitalia did not subscribe to the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs of the action in any                 new increase in capital; private banks subscribed only
      event.                                                                    after the formal subscription of the State and the price of
                                                                                the new shares was two-thirds of the price of the
                                                                                contemporaneous increase in the capital subscribed
                                                                                exclusively by the State by means of the second and third
                                                                                tranches of aid for restructuring.
Pleas in law and main arguments
By the contested decision, the Commission took formal notice
of the payment of the second tranche of aid by the Italian
Republic for the restructuring of Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane
S.p.A., authorised by Decision 97/789/EC of 15 July 1997 and
confirmed by Decision 2001/723/EC of 18 July 2001, and
decided not to object to the payment of the third tranche. It              Action brought on 26 November 2002 by Quick Res-
also decided that the new recapitalisation of Alitalia in the sum          taurants SA against Office for Harmonization in the
of EUR 1 432 million does not constitute State aid.                            Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)
                                                                                (Case T-348/02)
In support of its claims the applicant makes the following
submissions:
                                                                                (2003/C 31/27)
—     Infringement of Article 88(2) of the Treaty, in that as
      Alitalia infringed at least three of the conditions for the
      authorisation of aid, the Commission ought to have                                     (Language of the case: French)
      allowed competing undertakings to submit observations
      before it assessed the compatibility of the payment of the
      second and third tranches of aid with the common
      market.
                                                                           An action against Office for Harmonization in the Internal
—     Infringement and erroneous application of the Com-                   Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM) was brought before
      munity guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructur-          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
      ing firms in difficulty, and a failure to state reasons in           26 November 2002 by Quick Restaurants SA, established in
      that, in so far as the Commission decided to take notice             Brussels, represented by Louis Van Bunnen, lawyer, with an
      of the payment of the second tranche and not to object               address for service in Luxembourg.


29.11.2003            EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 289/19
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       Removal from the register of Case C-194/02 (1)
the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations                                     (2003/C 289/39)
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of
      biotechnological inventions (1) or, in any event, by not         By order of 30 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
      communicating those provisions to the Commission, the            of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
      Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations          register of Case C-194/02: Commission of the European
      under Article 15 of that directive;                              Communities v Republic of Austria.
2.    Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The time-limit fixed for the transposition of the directive
expired on 30 July 2000.
(1) OJ L 213 of 30.07.1998, p. 13.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-226/02 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case C-33/02 (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/40)
                         (2003/C 289/38)
By order of 19 June 2003 the President of the Court of Justice         By order of 8 May 2003 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from
                                                                       of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
the register of Case C-33/02: Commission of the European
                                                                       register of Case C-226/02 Reference for a preliminary ruling by
Communities v Republic of Austria.                                     the Østre Landsret): Remedan af 1985 ApS v Skatteministeriet.
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


title: Case C-467/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 13 October 2014  — Criminal proceedings against Chiara Baldo

text:
               15.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 448/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bergamo (Italy) lodged on 13 October 2014 — Criminal proceedings against Chiara Baldo
   (Case C-467/14)
   (2014/C 448/18)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bergamo

      Party to the main proceedings

   Chiara Baldo

      Questions referred

               1)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, considered also in the light of the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C-72/10 and C-77/10], to be interpreted as precluding a call for tenders for the award of licences with a period of validity shorter than that of licences awarded in the past?

               2)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, considered also in the light of the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C 72/10 and C 77/10], to be interpreted as precluding the possibility that sufficient justification for the shorter period of validity of licences offered for tender, as compared with licences awarded in the past, can be found in the requirement for the licensing system to be reorganised through the alignment of licence expiry dates?

               3)

               Are Article 49 et seq. TFEU and Article 56 et seq. TFEU, considered also in the light of the principles set out in the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 16 February 2012 [in Joined Cases C 72/10 and C 77/10], to be interpreted as precluding the imposition of an obligation to transfer, free of charge, the use of tangible and intangible assets represented by the betting management and collection network in the event that the activity has ceased owing to the expiry of the licence or as a result of measures disqualifying the licence-holder or withdrawing the licence?


title: Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Atlantic Container Line AB and others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-18/97)

text:
22 . 3 . 97          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 94/21
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   Communities on 24 January 1997 by Kermene SA, having
                                                                      its registered office at Saint Jacut du Mene ( France), and
The applicants, French companies producing veal for                   Vals SA, having its registered office in Champagne
human consumption, contest Council Regulation ( EC )                  ( France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of the Rouen
No 2222/96 of 18 November 1996 amending Regulation                    Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
( EEC ) No 805/68 on the common organization of the                   Chambers of Marc Loesch, 11 rue Goethe .
market in beef and veal ( J ), in particular Article 1 (4 )
thereof, in as much as it requires the Member States to               The applicants claim that the Court should:
pay an early marketing premium the conditions and
methods of calculation of which have caused them serious
                                                                      — annul Regulation (EC ) No 2222/96 adopted on
damage .                                                                   18 November 1996 by the Council, a Community
                                                                           institution, or at least Article 1 (4 ) thereof, that part of
They state in that regard that, as a result of the fact that
                                                                           the act being separable from its other provisions,
Article 1 (4 ) provides, in the implementation of the said
premium, for the uniform application of a 15% reduction
in the slaughter weight in each country, based on a                   — order the Council to pay the costs .
reference parameter deriving from statistics drawn up for
1995 , the carcase premium reference figure obtainable by             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
the applicants amounts to 108 kg, which weight is totally
incompatible with the normal marketing of such a carcase,             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as
since the carcase weight produced prior to that measure               those relied on in Case T- 14/97 Sofivo and Others v.
was 127 kg.                                                           Council .
They further state that,
at the same time, their competitors in the Netherlands,
which is the second largest producer in Europe and
exports 95% of its production, enjoy the highest                      Action brought on 27 January 1997 by Atlantic Container
reference, enabling them to obtain the premium on the                 Line AB and others against the Commission of the
basis of a carcase weight of 138 kg, which places them in                                 European Communities
a particularly favourable competitive position in the
                                                                                Case T-18/97)
French market. Since the carcase premium weight in that
country ( less than 138 kg) is very close to that for which                                     ( 97/C 94/45 )
demand exists in the French market, producers established
there are able to produce calves of the type sought after in                          (Language of the case: English)
the French market and to receive the premium of ECU 65
per carcase, resulting, in their view, in total disparity             An action against the Commission of the European
between both prices and products. Furthermore, the speed              Communities was brought before the Court of First
with which the measure has been introduced interferes
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 27 January
with the production previously planned, relating to                   1997 by Atlantic Container Line AB, represented by John
periods of between 22 and 24 weeks, whereas the                       Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Shaun Goodman, with
reference resulting in the premium weight of 108 kg                   an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
brings the fattening period down to between 15 and 17                 Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe .
weeks .
                                                                      The applicants claim that the Court should
In support of their claims, the applicant companies plead
a breach of the principle of equality of treatment, as well
as the existence, in the present case, of an anti-competitive         — annul Commission Decision C(96 ) 3414 of
situation, contrary to the second subparagraph of                          26 November 1996 relating to the Trans-Atlantic
Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty.                                            Conference Agreement,
(') OJ No L 296 , 21 . 11 . 1996 , p. 50 .                            — order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs.
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                      The applicants are 16 of the 17 liner shipping operators
                                                                      which are party to the Trans-Atlantic Conference
Action brought on 24 January 1997 by Kermene SA and                   Agreement, pursuant to which they together provide
     Vals SA against the Council of the European Union                westbound and eastbound containerized liner services
                          (Case T-15/97)                              across the Atlantic Ocean for the carriage of cargo
                            ( 97/C 94/44 )                            between inland points and ports in Northern Europe and
                                                                      the United States of America .
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      The applicants seek the annulment of the contested
An action against the Council of the European Union was               Commission decision, in which the Commission withdrew
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European            the applicants' immunity from fines conferred by
 ---pagebreak--- No C 94/22         I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 3 . 97
notification of the Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement              — order the defendant to pay him compensation equal to
on 5 July 1994 in relation to the joint exercise of rate                the remuneration which he would have received if he
making authority in respect of the inland portions within                had been reinstated, in accordance with Article 40 (4 )
the European Community of through-intermodal transport                    ( d) of the Staff Regulations, in the first post falling
services ('European Intermodal Authority').                              vacant, together with default interest at the rate of
                                                                          8 % per annum from the date when such remuneration
                                                                         became due until the date when it is paid,
The applicants claim that the contested decision does not
purport to withdraw immunity from fines in respect of
European Intermodal Authority in any other context.                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
They submit that the contested decision is unlawful on the
following grounds, maintaining that each one of these
grounds is sufficient to justify its annulment:                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— the legal conditions established by the Court of Justice           Following a period of leave on personal grounds which
    for the withdrawal of immunity from fines are not met            commenced on 16 February 1991 , the applicant, a grade
    in this case,                                                    LA 7 official employed in Luxembourg, asked to be
                                                                     reinstated by fax of 15 December 1993 . He was reinstated
                                                                     in Unit G2 of the Translation Service in Luxembourg on
— the contested decision is incompatible with the order              16 February 1995 .
    of the President of the Court of First Instance of the
    European Communities in Case T-3 95/94 R [ 1995]
    ECR II, p. 595, upheld by the order of the President of          The applicant pleads infringement by the Commission of
    the Court of Justice in Case C-149/95 P(R),                      Article 40 (4 ) (d ) of the Staff Regulations, since it failed to
                                                                     verify the applicant's ability to satisfy the requirements of
                                                                     the two posts declared vacant in the German language
— the Commission infringed the applicants' rights of                 unit of the Translation Service in Brussels at the time
    defence in the procedure leading to the adoption of              when he asked to be reinstated, as well as three other
    the contested decision .                                         posts declared vacant in Units A2, D2 and E2 on
                                                                     20 January, 20 June and 22 November 1994.
                                                                     He further claims compensation in accordance with
                                                                     Articles 179 and 215 of the EC Treaty, since he received
                                                                     no remuneration in respect of the period from
Action brought on 29 January 1997 by Claude Richter                  15 December 1993 (the date of his request for
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 reinstatement). It follows that the Commission is bound to
                        Case T-19/97)                                compensate him by paying him the remuneration which he
                                                                     would have received from the date of his request for
                         97/C 94/46 )                                reinstatement or, at the latest, from the date when the two
                                                                     posts were declared vacant, until the date of his
               (Language of the case: French)                        reinstatement, 16 February 1995 .
An action against the Commission of European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 29 January
1997 by Claude Richter, residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                against the Commission of the European Communities
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                                       ( Case T-20/97)
SARL, 30 rue de Cessange.
                                                                                ( 97/C 94/47 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision rejecting his request
    for compensation for the fault committed by it in not            An action against the Commission of the European
    reinstating the applicant in the first vacant post               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    corresponding to his grade and abilities,                        Instance of the European Communities on 30 January
                                                                     1997 by Sofivo, established at Conde sur Vire ( France ),
                                                                     Sofivo Production, established at Brece ( France ), Sovinor,
— order the defendant to reconstitute the applicant's                established at Conde sur Vire (France ), Denkavit France,
    career with effect from 15 December 1993 or, at the              established at Montreuil-Bellay ( France ), Sobeval Viande,
    latest, from the date of publication of the first notice         established at Perigueux (France ), Serval, established at
    of vacancy of a post corresponding to his grade and              Sainte Eanne (France ), Besnier Industrie, established at
    abilities,                                                       Bourgbarre ( France), Sovida, established at Chateaubriand


title: Case T-81/08: Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Enercon v OHIM (E-ship)

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/34

         Action brought on 18 February 2008 — Enercon v OHIM (E-ship)
   (Case T-81/08)
   (2008/C 107/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by R. Böhm, lawyer)

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

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 December 2007 (Case R 319/2007-1);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘E-ship’ for goods and services in classes 7, 9, 12 and 39 (application No 5 050 539).

      Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) on account of an incorrect assessment of the need for availability and of the distinctive character of the mark applied for.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 June 2004 in Case C-421/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 85/337/EEC — Incomplete transposition)

text:
               7.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 201/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 24 June 2004
   in Case C-421/02: Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC - Incomplete transposition)
   (2004/C 201/08)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case C-421/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: X. Lewis) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: P. Ormond) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5), in relation to projects listed in Annex II, paragraph 1(b) and 1(c), to that directive, or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt in Scotland and Northern Ireland the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Article 4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, in relation to projects listed in Annex II, paragraph 1(c), to the Directive and by failing to notify the measures taken to implement that provision in England and Wales, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2002.


title: Joined Cases C-188/10 and C-189/10: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 June 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Proceedings against Aziz Melki (C-188/10) and Sélim Abdeli (C-189/10) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 267 TFEU — Examination of whether a national law is consistent both with European Union law and with the national constitution — National legislation granting priority to an interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality — Article 67 TFEU — Freedom of movement for persons — Abolition of border control at internal borders — Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 — Articles 20 and 21 — National legislation authorising identity checks in the area between the land border of France with States party to the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement and a line drawn 20 kilometres inside that border)

text:
               14.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 221/14

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 22 June 2010 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France)) — Proceedings against Aziz Melki (C-188/10) and Sélim Abdeli (C-189/10)
   (Joined Cases C-188/10 and C-189/10) (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 267 TFEU - Examination of whether a national law is consistent both with European Union law and with the national constitution - National legislation granting priority to an interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality - Article 67 TFEU - Freedom of movement for persons - Abolition of border control at internal borders - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Articles 20 and 21 - National legislation authorising identity checks in the area between the land border of France with States party to the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement and a line drawn 20 kilometres inside that border)
   2010/C 221/23
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Aziz Melki (C-188/10), Sélim Abdeli (C-189/10)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Interpretation of the general principles of European Union law and Articles 67 and 267 TFEU — Mandatory requirement to first refer the matter to the Conseil constitutionnel when a provision of domestic legislation, because it is contrary to European Union law, is presumed to be in breach of the Constitution — Primacy of European Union law over national law — Freedom of movement for persons — Absence of internal border controls for persons

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 267 TFEU precludes Member State legislation which establishes an interlocutory procedure for the review of the constitutionality of national laws, in so far as the priority nature of that procedure prevents — both before the submission of a question on constitutionality to the national court responsible for reviewing the constitutionality of laws and, as the case may be, after the decision of that court on that question — all the other national courts or tribunals from exercising their right or fulfilling their obligation to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. On the other hand, Article 267 TFEU does not preclude such national legislation, in so far as the other national courts or tribunals remain free:

                           —

                           to refer to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, at whatever stage of the proceedings they consider appropriate, even at the end of the interlocutory procedure for the review of constitutionality, any question which they consider necessary,

                           —

                           to adopt any measure necessary to ensure provisional judicial protection of the rights conferred under the European Union legal order, and

                           —

                           to disapply, at the end of such an interlocutory procedure, the national legislative provision at issue if they consider it to be contrary to European Union law.

                     It is for the referring court to ascertain whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings can be interpreted in accordance with those requirements of European Union law.

               2.

               Article 67(2) TFEU, and Articles 20 and 21 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), preclude national legislation which grants to the police authorities of the Member State in question the power to check, solely within an area of 20 kilometres from the land border of that State with States party to the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed at Schengen (Luxembourg) on 19 June 1990, the identity of any person, irrespective of his behaviour and of specific circumstances giving rise to a risk of breach of public order, in order to ascertain whether the obligations laid down by law to hold, carry and produce papers and documents are fulfilled, where that legislation does not provide the necessary framework for that power to guarantee that its practical exercise cannot have an effect equivalent to border checks.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.


title: Case C-450/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 November 2009 — Ulrich Schröder v Finanzamt Hameln

text:
               13.2.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany) lodged on 19 November 2009 — Ulrich Schröder v Finanzamt Hameln
   (Case C-450/09)
   2010/C 37/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ulrich Schröder

      Defendant: Finanzamt Hameln

      Question referred

   The following question is referred, pursuant to Article 234(3) EC, for a preliminary ruling:
   Is a situation where a relative with domestically limited tax liability, unlike a person with unlimited tax liability, may not deduct from his total income, as special expenditure, annuities paid in connection with income from letting or leasing, contrary to Articles 56 and 12 EC?


title: Case C-117/07: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 2005/28/EC — Principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use — Requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of these medicinal products — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/5

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 27 September 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic
   (Case C-117/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2005/28/EC - Principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use - Requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of these medicinal products - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   (2007/C 283/08)
   Language of the case: Czech
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and M. Šimerdová, Agents)

      Defendant(s): Czech Republic (represented by: T. Boček, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products (OJ 2005 L 91, p. 13)
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down principles and detailed guidelines for good clinical practice as regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or importation of such products, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 31(1) of that directive;

               2.

               The Czech Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-314/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 20 July 2006 — Société Pipeline Méditerranée et Rhône v Administration des Douanes et Droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED)

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation (France) lodged on 20 July 2006 — Société Pipeline Méditerranée et Rhône v Administration des Douanes et Droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED)
   (Case C-314/06)
   (2006/C 224/47)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Cour de Cassation
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Société Pipeline Méditerranée and Rhône

      Defendant: Administration des douanes et droits indirects, Direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED)
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the concept of force majeure giving rise to losses of products under duty suspension arrangements, within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1), be interpreted as meaning unforeseeable and unavoidable circumstances beyond the control of the approved warehousekeeper who seeks to rely on those circumstances in support of its application for exemption from duty, or is it sufficient that the approved warehousekeeper could not have avoided those circumstances?

               2.

               Can losses of part of products which have leaked from a pipeline due to their liquid nature and to the characteristics of the ground on which they spilled, which hindered their recovery and led to the levying of duty on them, be regarded as inherent in the nature of the products within the meaning of Article 14(1) of Directive 92/12?

      (1)  OJ L 76, p.l


title: Case T-273/01: Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Innova Privat-Akademie GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
5.1.2002                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 3/45
—     infringes Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Annex VII to the Staff            Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Innova Privat-
      Regulations, Opinion No 178/87 of the board of the                 Akademie GmbH against the Commission of the European
      heads of administration of 3 December 1987 and                                               Communities
      Articles 3(4) and 4 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC)
      No 260/68 of the Council of 29 February 1968 laying                                         (Case T-273/01)
      down the conditions and procedure for applying the
      tax for the benefit of the European Communities, as
      interpreted by the Court of Justice, inasmuch as the                                         (2002/C 3/78)
      applicant actually maintains his children and is entitled
      to have benefits, which are paid to his wife in the name                              (Language of the case: German)
      and on behalf of both parents, taken into account when
      calculating tax and calculating the expatriation allowance.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Innova Privat-
                                                                         Akademie GmbH, Berlin, represented by Thomas Kreutzfield,
                                                                         lawyer.
Action brought on 15 October 2001 by Philip Morris
International Inc. against the Commission of the European                The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           Communities
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant
                                                                               Euro 104 790 together with interest of 5 % above
                         (Case T-272/01)                                       the basic rate under paragraph 1 of the Diskontsatz-
                                                                               Überleitungs-Gesetz of 9.6.1998 of the Federal Republic
                           (2002/C 3/77)                                       of Germany from the date on which the proceedings
                                                                               became pending;
                   (Language of the case: English)                       —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                Pleas in law and main arguments
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 October 2001 by Philip Morris
International Inc., represented by Mr Jacques Derenne and                The applicant applied via a German bank for promotional
Mr Eric Morgan de Rivery of Liederkerke Siméon Wessing                   funds from the European Commission in order to finance a
Houthoff, Brussels (Belgium).                                            project within the framework of the EU ECIP promotional
                                                                         programme. The subject matter of the applicant’s project was
                                                                         a feasibility study on a joint venture in the area of professional
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              training in India.
—     annul the Contested Act resulting in the filing of the
                                                                         In March 1999 the bank informed the applicant that the
      Complaint on 6 August 2001 before the New York
                                                                         application had been approved with a subsidy of
      District Court against the applicant, as publicly
                                                                         Euro 115 328. The Commission had given that information
      announced by the Commission in Press Release
                                                                         to the bank infomally by telephone. However, the applicant
      IP/01/1193 of 6 August 2001;
                                                                         subsequently received no further information from the Com-
                                                                         mission.
—     order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.
                                                                         In 2000 the ECIP project was halted on account of the
                                                                         irregularities within the Commission which had come to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          light in 1999. Despite the above-mentioned agreement, the
                                                                         applicant received no funds from the ECIP project.
The applicant in the present case is the same undertaking as in
case T-377/00 (1). The facts, grounds and main arguments are             The applicant, which, in reliance on the promotion of the
similar to those arising in this case.                                   project, had concluded a contract with a consultancy firm with
                                                                         respect to the feasibility study, claims damages for the loss
                                                                         which it has allegedly incurred and claims that the failure to
(1) Philip Morris International/Commission (OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001,        pay the promotional funds is unlawful and caused the loss
    p. 23).                                                              suffered by it.


title: Case F-70/07: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 10 November 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Action for damages — Availability of a parallel remedy — Manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/78

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 10 November 2009 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-70/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Action for damages - Availability of a parallel remedy - Manifestly inadmissible)
   2010/C 24/146
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: C. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and J. Currall, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision to not grant the applicant’s application for reimbursement of part of his costs which the Commission was ordered to pay in the order of 6 March 2006 of the Court of First Instance in Case T-176/04 — Application for damages — Case T-176/04 DEP was referred by the Court of First Instance by order of 6 July 2009.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The first, second, third and sixth heads of claim in the action brought by Mr Marcuccio must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               The parties are to bear their own costs in relation to the first, second, third and sixth heads of claim in the action brought by Mr Marcuccio, including those incurred in the proceedings in Case T-176/04 DEP.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007, p. 20.


title: Case C-227/11: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem — Netherlands) — DHL Danzas Air & Ocean (Netherlands) BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff positions — Network analysers — Classification — Legal value of a classification opinion of the World Customs Organisation)

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Haarlem — Netherlands) — DHL Danzas Air & Ocean (Netherlands) BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat
   (Case C-227/11) (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff positions - Network analysers - Classification - Legal value of a classification opinion of the World Customs Organisation)
   2012/C 126/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Haarlem

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: DHL Danzas Air & Ocean (Netherlands) BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West, kantoor Hoofddorp Saturnusstraat

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank Haarlem — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 129/2005 of 20 January 2005 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature and amending Regulation (EC) No 955/98 (OJ 2005 L 25, p. 37) — Network analysers

      Operative part of the order

   The combined nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended, respectively by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004, and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005 of 27 October 2005, must be interpreted as meaning that network analysers such as those at issue in the main proceedings may be classified in the subheading 9030 40 90 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1810/2004, or in the subheading 9030 40 00 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1719/2005, according to the date of import, on condition that such apparatus have the purpose of measuring or checking electrical quantities, which is for the national court to establish. Otherwise, those apparatus must be classified in the subheading 9031 80 39 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1810/2004, or in the subheading 9031 80 38 of the combined nomenclature, as amended by Regulation No 1719/2005, according to the date of import.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case T-314/11: Order of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — Fortress Participations v OHIM — FIG and Fortress Investment Group (FORTRESS) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               7.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 200/16

         Order of the General Court of 24 May 2012 — Fortress Participations v OHIM — FIG and Fortress Investment Group (FORTRESS)
   (Case T-314/11) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate)
   2012/C 200/34
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fortress Participations BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented, initially, by: L.J. van de Braak, avocat, B. Ladas, Solicitor, and S. Malynicz, Barrister, then, by: L.J. van de Braak, S. Malynicz, R. Black, Solicitor, and V. Baxter, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: FIG LLC (New York, United States); and Fortress Investment Group (UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Gray and R. Mallinson, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 April 2011 (Case R 354/2009-2) relating to invalidity proceedings between FIG LLC and Fortress Investment Group (UK), on the one hand, and Fortress Participations BV, on the other.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

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

               2.

               The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and those incurred by the defendant. The interveners are ordered to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.


               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/33

         Removal from the register of Case C-121/05 P (1)

   (2006/C 60/69)

      (Language of the case: German)

   By order of 14 December 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-121/05 P: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) v Deutsche Post EURO EXPRESS GmbH.

      (1)  OJ C 143, 11.06.2005.


title: Case T-108/13: Action brought on 23 February 2013 — VTZ and Others v Council

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/42

         Action brought on 23 February 2013 — VTZ and Others v Council
   (Case T-108/13)
   2013/C 114/64
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Volžskij trubnyi zavod OAO (VTZ OAO) (Volzhsky, Russia); Taganrogskij metallurgičeskij zavod OAO (Tagmet OAO) (Taganrog, Russia); Sinarskij trubnyj zavod OAO (SinTZ OAO) (Kamensk-Uralsky, Russia); and Severskij trubnyj zavod OAO (STZ OAO) (Polevskoy, Russia) (represented by: J. Bellis, F. Di Gianni and G. Coppo, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1269/2012 of 21 December 2012 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel originating in, inter alia, Russia, following a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 insofar as it includes the sales referred to in paragraphs 23-33 of the Contested Regulation in the scope of the review investigation;

               —

               As a consequence of the partial annulment requested above, correct the rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to TMK group from 28,7% to 13,6%; and

               —

               Order the Council to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.
   With the first plea in law, the applicants submit that the Council unlawfully relied upon criteria other than those set out in the wording of the relevant customs provisions to determine the classifications of the pipes referred to in paragraphs 23-33 of the contested regulation.
   With the second plea in law, the applicants submit that the specific grounds relied upon by the Council to conclude that the pipes referred to in paragraphs 23-33 of the contested regulation do not fall under CN code 7304 59 10 are flawed.
   With the third plea in law, the applicants submit that, in light of the specific circumstances of the case, the mere fact that the pipes referred to in paragraphs 23-33 of the contested regulation were actually used in the manufacture of tubes and pipes with other cross-sections and wall-thickness proves that they fall under CN code 7304 59 10.


title: Case C-389/12 P: Appeal brought on 20 August 2012 by Tibor Szarvas against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2012 in Case T-129/12 Tibor Szarvas v Hungary

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/9

         Appeal brought on 20 August 2012 by Tibor Szarvas against the order of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 26 June 2012 in Case T-129/12 Tibor Szarvas v Hungary
   (Case C-389/12 P)
   2013/C 171/16
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Appellant: Tibor Szarvas (represented by: M. Katona, ügyvéd)

      Other party to the proceedings: Hungary
   By order of 7 March 2013 the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed the appeal and ordered the applicant to bear his own costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 12 October 1995 in Case C-242/94: Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 90/619/EEC - Failure to transpose)

text:
No C 315 /2            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25 . 11 . 95
interpretation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1491 /85 of          Enrique Gonzalez Diaz ) v. Kingdom of Spain ( Agents :
23 May 1985 laying down special measures in respect of               Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) —
soya beans ( OJ 1985 L 151 , p. 15 ), of Council Regulation          application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or to
( EEC ) No 2194/85 of 25 July 1985 adopting general rules            communicate to the Commission the laws, regulations and
concerning special measures for soya beans ( OJ 1985 L 204 ,         administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
p. 1 ), and of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 2537/89 of           second Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November 1990
8 August 1989 laying down detailed rules for the                     on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
application of the special measures for soya beans ( OJ 1989         provisions relating to direct life insurance, laying down
L 245 , p. 8 ), as amended by Commission Regulation ( EEC )          provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to
No 150/90 of 19 January 1990 ( OJ 1 990 L 18 , p. 10 ) — the         provide services and amending Directive 79/267/EEC ( OJ
Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: D. A. O. Edward,                1 990 L 330 , p. 50 ), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C.             its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth
Gulmann ( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and L. Sevon, Judges; C. O.          Chamber ), composed of: G. Hirsch , President of the Second
Lenz, Advocate-General ; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the          Chamber acting as President of the Sixth Chamber, G. F.
Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 October 1995 , the                  Mancini ( Rapporteur ), F. A. Schockweiler, J. L. Murray,
operative part of which is as follows :                              and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ;
                                                                     R. Grass , Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 October 1 995 , in
                                                                     which it :
1 . Examination of the first four questions referred for a
     preliminary ruling has revealed nothing capable of
     affecting the validity of Article 29a of Commission             1 . Declares that, by failing to bring into force within the
     Regulation No 2537/89 of 8 August 1989 laying down                   prescribed period the laws, regulations and
     detailed rules for the application of the special measures           administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
     for soya beans, as amended by Commission Regulation                  second Council Directive 90/619/EEC of 8 November
     (EEC) No 150/90.                                                     1990 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
                                                                          administrative provisions relating to direct life
2 . Article 6 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2537/89, as                      insurance, laying down provisions to facilitate the
     amended, must be understood as meaning that soya                     effective exercise of freedom to provide services and
     producers must notify the competent agency of any                    amending Directive 79/267/EEC, the Kingdom of Spain
     change in the areas indicated in the cultivation contract,           has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
     in particular any reduction in those areas, even if it is            Treaty;
     attributable to natural occurrences, such as heavy
     rainfall, where such a change occurs before the lodging
                                                                     2 . Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
     of the contract, as well as all changes which occur after
     lodging of the cultivation contract and which ,
     individually or collectively, involve more than 10% of          (•) O J No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
     the areas indicated in the cultivation contract and more
     than one hectare .
(M Ol No C 146 , 28 . 5 . 1994 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 17 October 1995
                                                                     in Case C-450/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                the Bundesarbeitsgericht ): Eckhard Kalanke v. Freie
                        ( Sixth Chamber)                                                   Hansestadt Bremen (')
                      of 12 October 1995                              (Equal treatment of men and women — Directive
                                                                      76/207/EEC — Article 2 (4) — Promotion — Equally
in    Case    C-242/94 :     Commission     of the    European
            Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (')                      qualified candidates of different sexes — Priority given to
                                                                                women)
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 90/619/EEC —                                        ( 95/C 315/04 )
                      Failure to transpose)
                          ( 95/C 315/03 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                 published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-450/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
 In   Case     C-242/94 :    Commission     of  the   European        of the EC Treaty from the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal
 Communities ( Agents : Dimitrios Gouloussis and Francisco            Labour Court) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings


title: Case T-357/09: Action brought on 15 September 2009 — Pucci International v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (Emidio Tucci)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/78

         Action brought on 15 September 2009 — Pucci International v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (Emidio Tucci)
   (Case T-357/09)
   2009/C 267/140
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Emilio Pucci International BV (Baarn, The Netherlands) (represented by: M. Boletto, E. Gavuzzi, G. Lazzeretti and P. Roncaglia, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 June 2009 in joined cases R 770/2008-2 and R 826/2008-2, in so far as it accepted registration of Community trade mark application No 3 679 594“Emidio Tucci” for all the goods and services it covers in classes 1, 2, 4-17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26-45;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings; and

               —

               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during the proceedings before OHIM’s Opposition Division and Board of Appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “Emidio Tucci”, for goods and services in classes 1-45

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark “Emilio Pucci” registered for goods in classes 18 and 24; Italian trade mark registration of the word mark “EMILIO PUCCI” registered for goods classes 3, 14, 18, 21, 24, 25 and 33; Italian trade mark registration of the word mark “EMILIO PUCCI” registered for goods classes 9, 12, 18, 20, 26, 27 and 34; Italian trade mark registration of the figurative mark “Emilio Pucci” registered for goods classes 14, 18, 24 and 25

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially accepted the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially upheld the appeal in cases R 826/2008-2 and R 770/2008-2; dismissed the appeal for the remainder

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred in its conclusion that these legal provisions could not apply with respect to the goods and services covered by the Community trade mark concerned in classes 1, 2, 4-17, 19, 20, 21 (part of), 22, 23 and 26-45.


title: Case C-226/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, Division Ia, by order of that court of 22 April 2004 in the case of ‘La Cascina’ s.c.r.l. and Zilch s.r.l. v Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Economy and Finance, and Pedus Service P. Dussmann s.r.l. and Others

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio, Division Ia, by order of that court of 22 April 2004 in the case of ‘La Cascina’ s.c.r.l. and Zilch s.r.l. v Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Economy and Finance, and Pedus Service P. Dussmann s.r.l. and Others
   (Case C-226/04)
   (2004/C 190/16)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of Division Ia of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Regional Administrative Court, Lazio) of 22 April 2004, received at the Court Registry on 2 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of ‘La Cascina’ s.c.r.l. and Zilch s.r.l. v Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Economy and Finance and Pedus Service P. Dussmann s.r.l. and Others, on the following questions:

               1)

               Must subparagraphs (e) and (f) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as regards only the abovementioned provisions, be interpreted as meaning that, where the Community legislature employs the expression ‘has not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions in accordance with the legal provisions of the country in which he is established or with those of the country of the contracting authority’ or ‘has not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of taxes in accordance with the legal provisions of the country of the contracting authority’, the legislature intended to refer – solely and exclusively – to a situation in which the person concerned has – when the period prescribed for submitting applications to participate in a public tendering procedure expires (or in any event before the award of the contract, as indicated under point III.4 above) – fulfilled those obligations by paying in full and in time?

               2)

               Consequently, must the Italian national implementing measure (Article 12 (d) and (e) of Legislative Decree No 157 of 17 March 1995) – in so far as, unlike the Community provision cited above, it allows the exclusion from tendering procedures of persons who ‘are not in compliance in respect of obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions for employees, in accordance with Italian legislation or the legislation of the State in which they are established’ or who ‘are not in compliance in respect of obligations relating to the payment of taxes, in accordance with Italian legislation or the legislation of the State in which they are established’ - be interpreted with reference solely to the failure – verifiable at the date mentioned above (the expiry of the period prescribed for submitting applications to participate or immediately before the award, even provisional, of the contract) – to fulfil those obligations, without any importance being attached to subsequent ‘regularisation’ of their position?

               3)

               Or, conversely (if, in the light of the indications set out in question 2 above, the national measure is held not to be in harmony with the rationale and function of the Community provision), may the national legislature be regarded, in the light of the limitations to which it is subject for the purpose of giving effect to the Community rules contained in the Directive at issue, as being entitled to introduce the option of allowing the admission to a tendering procedure of persons who, although not ‘in compliance’ when the period prescribed for participation in the procedure expires, nevertheless show that they can regularise their position (and have taken positive steps to do so) before the award of the contract?

               4)

               And, if the interpretation referred to in question 3 above is held to be workable - thus permitting the introduction of more flexible rules than would be allowed on a stricter interpretation of the ‘fulfilment’ of obligations referred to by the Community legislature - do such rules conflict with fundamental Community principles, such as the principle of equal treatment for all citizens of the Union, or – with regard only to public tendering procedures – that of equal conditions for all persons who have applied for admission to such procedures?

      (1)  OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.


20150731016616682015/C 270/222742015CJC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150608171822Case C-274/15: Action brought on 8 June 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN1720120150608EN0022172182Action brought on 8 June 2015 — European Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-274/15)2015/C 270/22Language of the case: French
      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac and C. Soulay, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

            —

            declare that in laying down the VAT regime applicable to independent groups of persons, as defined in Article 44(1)(y) of the Law of 12 February 1979 on VAT, in Articles 1 to 4 of the Grand-Ducal Order of 21 January 2004 on the exemption from VAT of supplies of services to their members by independent groups of persons, in Administrative Circular No 707 of 29 January 2004 in so far as it comments on Articles 1 to 4 of the Grand-Ducal Order, and in the Note of 18 December 2008 by the working group within the Comité d'Observation des Marchés (Cobma; the Financial Market Observation Committee) with agreement from l'Administration de l'Enregistrement et des Domaines (the Registration and Land Authority), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the VAT Directive (
                  1
               ), and, specifically, under Article 2(1)(c), Article 132(1)(f), the second subparagraph of Article 1(2), Article 168(a), Article 178(a), Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of that directive;

            —

            order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Article 132(1)(f) of the VAT Directive stipulates that Member States are to exempt from VAT ‘the supply of services by independent groups of persons, who are carrying on an activity which is exempt from VAT or in relation to which they are not taxable persons, for the purpose of rendering their members the services directly necessary for the exercise of that activity, where those groups merely claim from their members exact reimbursement of their share of the joint expenses, provided that such exemption is not likely to cause distortion of competition’.
   However, according to the Commission, the legislation applicable in Luxembourg does not restrict the VAT exemption only to services provided by an independent group of persons and directly necessary for activities undertaken by its members which are not liable to VAT or are exempt.
   Further, the Commission submits that under Luxembourg law, the members of an independent group of persons whose turnover partly derives from taxable activities may deduct the VAT invoiced to the independent group of persons for its purchases of goods or services from a third party from the VAT which they themselves are liable to pay; whereas under Article 168 of the VAT Directive, the right to deduct input VAT is granted only to a taxable person who acquires the goods or services subject to VAT and uses them for the direct purposes of his taxed transactions.
   Lastly, the Commission maintains that Article 14(2)(c) and Article 28 of the VAT Directive preclude the national legislation in so far as it provides that, where a member of an independent group of persons acquires goods and services from a third party in his own name, but on behalf of the group, the transaction by which that member assigns such expenditure to the group falls outside the scope of VAT.
   (
         1
      )	Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).