title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 July 2000 in Case T-110/98: RJB Mining plc v Commission of the European Communities (ECSC Treaty — State aid — Operating aid — Conditions for authorisation — Obligation to state reasons — Further steps in proceedings after interlocutory judgment — Application manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
9.12.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 355/23
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 25 July 2000
                      of 27 September 2000
                                                                           in Case T-110/98: RJB Mining plc v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
in Case T-317/99: Franz Lemaître v the Commission of
                  the European Communities(1)
                                                                           (ECSC Treaty — State aid — Operating aid — Conditions
                                                                           for authorisation — Obligation to state reasons — Further
                                                                           steps in proceedings after interlocutory judgment — Appli-
(Officials — Expatriation allowance — Installation allow-                         cation manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
ance — Article 4(1)(b) and Article 5 of Annex VII to the
                         Staff Regulations)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/52)
                          (2000/C 355/51)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           In Case T-110/98: RJB Mining plc, with its registered office at
                                                                           Harworth, United Kingdom, represented by M. Brealey, Barris-
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           ter, and J. Lawrence, Solicitor, with an address for service in
                                                                           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8-10
                                                                           Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
In Case T-317/99: Franz Lemaître, official at the Commission               Communities (Agents: initially P.F. Nemitz, and subsequently
of the European Communities, residing in Céroux-Mousty                     K.-D. Borchardt and N. Khan), supported by Federal Republic
(Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden, of the Brussels                 of Germany (Agents: C.-D. Quassowski, and M. Schütte),
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at Société de               Kingdom of Spain, (Agent: R. Silva de Lapuerta) and RAG
gestion fiduciaire SARL, 13, avenue du Bois, against the                   Aktiengesellschaft, established in Essen, Germany, represented
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall                 by M. Hansen, of the Copenhagen Bar, and S.B. Völcker,
and D. Waelbroeck) — application for the annulment of the                  Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in Luxem-
decisions contained in letters from the Commission of                      bourg at the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue
18 February 1999 and 12 March 1999 refusing to grant                       Goethe — application for annulment of Commission Decision
the applicant an expatriation allowance and an installation                98/687/ECSC of 10 June 1998 on German aid to the coal
allowance, respectively — the Court of First Instance (Single-             industry for 1997 (OJ 1998 L 324, p. 30) — the Court of First
Judge Chamber — R.M. Moura Ramos); G. Herzig, adminis-                     Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed
trator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 September                 of: J. Pirrung, President, J. Azizi, A. Potocki, M. Jaeger and
2000, in which it:                                                         A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on
                                                                           25 July 2000, in which it has ruled:
1.    annuls the decision of the Commission of 12 March 1999               1.    The application is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foun-
      refusing to grant the applicant an installation allowance;                 dation in law, in so far as it is based on pleas in law which
                                                                                were not rejected by the interlocutory judgment of 9 September
                                                                                1999 in this case.
2.    dismisses the remainder of the application;
                                                                           2.    The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the
                                                                                Commission and RAG Aktiengesellschaft, including those
3.    orders the Commission to pay its own costs and half of the                 relating to the interlocutory proceedings in Case T-110/98 R,
      applicant’s costs and orders the applicant to bear half of his             the interlocutory judgment and the order of 25 October 1999.
      own costs.
                                                                           3.    The Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Spain
                                                                                shall bear their own costs.
(1) OJ No C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.98.


title: Case C-86/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Taxation — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 9 and 11 — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes)

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 25 April 2013 — European Commission v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-86/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Taxation - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 9 and 11 - National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a group of persons who may be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes)
   2013/C 171/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: S. Hathaway, acting as Agent, and M. Hall QC)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and T. Müller, acting as Agents), Kingdom of Denmark (represented: initially by C. Vang, and subsequently by V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents), Ireland (represented by: D. O’Hagan, acting as Agent, assisted by G. Clohessy, SC, and N. Travers, BL), Republic of Finland (represented by: H. Leppo and S. Hartikainen, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 9 and 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation permitting the inclusion of non-taxable persons in a VAT group

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the Republic of Finland to bear their own respective costs.

      (1)  OJ C 145, 14.5.2011.


title: Case T-459/05: Action brought on  30 December 2005  — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/47

         Action brought on 30 December 2005 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM
   (Case T-459/05)
   (2006/C 60/88)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties

      Applicant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (Mosbach, Germany) (represented by W. Göpfert, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 October 2005 as regards the appeal proceedings R 1059/2004-2, and;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘manufacturing score card’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 — Application No 3 334 596

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the mark for which registration is sought is capable of being protected because the fact that the elements constituting the mark sought could, each in themselves, or, as part of a different constellation, perhaps have a descriptive content is not sufficient to preclude protection.
   Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation, inasmuch as the overall combination of elements, as regards the goods and services for which registration of the mark is sought, is imaginative and conveys an unclear and vague meaning which goes beyond a mere bringing together of the terms.


title: Case C-512/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Octapharma France SAS v Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM), Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé (Approximation of laws  — Directive 2001/83/EC  — Directive 2002/98/EC  — Scope  — Labile blood product  — Plasma prepared by means of an industrial process  — Simultaneous or exclusive application of the directives  — Option for a Member State to provide for a less rigorous regime for plasma than for medicinal products)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/9

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Octapharma France SAS v Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM), Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé
   (Case C-512/12) (1)

   ((Approximation of laws - Directive 2001/83/EC - Directive 2002/98/EC - Scope - Labile blood product - Plasma prepared by means of an industrial process - Simultaneous or exclusive application of the directives - Option for a Member State to provide for a less rigorous regime for plasma than for medicinal products))
   2014/C 135/09
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Octapharma France SAS

      Defendants: Agence nationale de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM), Ministère des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Conseil d'État (France) — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67), as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 34) — Interpretation of Article 4(2) of Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83/EC (OJ 2003 L 33, p. 30) and of Article 168 TFEU — Labile blood products — Plasma prepared by means of an industrial process — Simultaneous application of two directives or application of the provisions of Directive 2001/83/EC alone due to the less strict scheme implemented by Directive 2002/98/EC — Option for a Member State to adopt or maintain national provisions implementing a less strict scheme for plasma prepared by means of an industrial process than for medicinal products — De facto non-application of Directive 2001/83/EC regarding the condition of the prior grant of a marketing authorisation.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and Directive 2002/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 setting standards of quality and safety for the collection, testing, processing, storage and distribution of human blood and blood components and amending Directive 2001/83 must be interpreted as meaning that plasma from whole blood which is prepared by a method involving an industrial process and which is intended for transfusions comes, in accordance with Article 109 of Directive 2001/83, within the scope of Directive 2002/98 with respect to its collection and testing, and within the scope of Directive 2001/83, as amended by Directive 2004/27, with respect to its processing, storage and distribution, on condition that it satisfies the definition of a medicinal product under Article 1(2) of the latter directive;

               2)

               Article 4(2) of Directive 2002/98, read in the light of Article 168 TFEU, must be interpreted as meaning that it allows the maintenance or introduction of national provisions which make plasma which is prepared by a method involving an industrial process subject to a more rigorous regime than that to which medicinal products are subject solely with respect to its collection and testing.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: Case T-37/08: Action brought on 23 January 2008 — Walton v Commission

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/33

         Action brought on 23 January 2008 — Walton v Commission
   (Case T-37/08)
   (2008/C 92/68)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Robert Walton (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Beard, Barrister)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               A declaration that the decision of the Commission to set-off the sum of EUR 36 551,58 against the sums due to Mr Walton pursuant to the judgment of the Court in Case T-144/02 was unlawful; or

               —

               a declaration that the decision of the Commission to set off the sum of EUR 36 551,58 against the sums due to Mr Walton pursuant to the judgment of the Court in Case T-144/02 was unlawful in part; or

               —

               a declaration that the sum of EUR 36 551,58 set off by the Commission against the sums due to Mr Walton pursuant to the judgment of the Court in Case T-144/02 should be recalculated so as to remove the Commission's claim for interest; and/or

               —

               an order that (a) the established amount receivable of EUR 13 104,14 plus interest; and/or (b) the established amount receivable of EUR 13 815,16 plus interest be cancelled; and

               —

               an order that the Commission pay the appellant's costs; and

               —

               such further or other measures as the Court may consider just and equitable.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By judgment of 12 July 2007 in Case T-144/02 Richard J. Eagle and Others v Commission [2007] ECR II-0000 the Commission was ordered by the Court of First Instance to pay the applicant damages of a certain amount.
   By payment of 16 November 2007 the Commission paid a reduced amount having set off the sum of EUR 36 551,58. The applicant challenges the decision of the Commission to reduce the sums due to him by this amount.
   In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in reaching the contested decision, as the decision was an unlawful abuse of process since the Commission had withdrawn its claim for set-off during the proceedings before the Court and therefore could not unilaterally pursue the issue subsequently.
   The applicant furthermore contends that the contested decision was contrary to a binding legitimate expectation of the applicant, as the Commission had accepted the applicant's figures in correspondence following the judgment of the Court.
   Finally, the applicant claims that the debit notes upon which the contested decision relied failed to provide a proper legal basis for the decision and that the decision was based upon a fundamental miscalculation in relation to interest claimed.


title: Case C-336/13 P: Appeal brought on 19 June 2013 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2013 in Case T-671/11 IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH v European Commission

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/25

         Appeal brought on 19 June 2013 by the European Commission against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2013 in Case T-671/11 IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-336/13 P)
   2013/C 260/43
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac, G. Wilms, G. Zavvos, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2013 in Case T-671/11;

               —

               dismiss the claim by IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH against the Commission of 22 December 2011

               —

               order IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH to pay the costs at both instances.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Appellant argues that the judgment under appeal is legally defective in numerous respects:

               (a)

               It fails to take account of the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which equalisation interest serves to compensate for inflation.

               (b)

               Contrary to the case-law of the Court of Justice, it fails to make a distinction between equalisation interest and interest for delay, and sets both interest rates at two percentage points above the main refinancing interest rate of the European Central Bank.

               (c)

               It contains a calculation error, in that it capitalises the equalisation interest and calculates the interest for delay from 15 April 2011.

               (d)

               It misinterprets the contested decision and its own judgment in Case T-297/05 (1) and distorts the facts.

               (e)

               It contains an insufficient statement of reasons: It is not possible to determine the reasons for the amount of the interest calculation and the beginning of the calculation of interest for delay and the reasoning is inherently contradictory.

               (f)

               It infringes the principles of EU law on enrichment.

      (1)  [2011] ECR II-1859


title: Case T-169/04: Action brought on 12 May 2004 by Calliope S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

text:
               10.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 179/14

         Action brought on 12 May 2004 by Calliope S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
   (Case T-169/04)
   (2004/C 179/28)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12 May 2004 by Calliope S.A., established in Mourenx (France), represented by Stéphanie Legrand, lawyer.
   BASF AG was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 4 March 2004 dismissing appeal No R 289/2003-1;

               —

               order the OHIM to register the application for Community trade mark ‘CARPOVIRUSINE’ No 1 422 641 for the goods referred to in the application;

               —

               order the OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:

               Applicant for Community trade mark:

               Applicant

               Community trade mark sought:

               Word mark ‘CARPOVIRUSINE’ – application No 1 422 641 in respect of goods in Class 5 (insecticides etc.)

               Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

               BASF AG

               Mark or sign cited in opposition:

               National and international word mark ‘CARPO’ for goods in Class 5

               Decision of the Opposition Division:

               Registration refused

               Decision of the Board of Appeal:

               Appeal dismissed

               Pleas in law:

               Wrongful application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 1

      (1)   Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11 of 14.01.94, pp. 1-36).


               25.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/2

         Designation of the judge to replace the President of the Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with applications for interim measures
   2010/C 260/02
   On 8 September 2010, in accordance with Article 103(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal decided that, for the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011, Judge H. TAGARAS, President of the Second Chamber, will replace the President of the Tribunal for the purpose of dealing with applications for interim measures in the event of the President’s absence or his being prevented from attending.


               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/34

         (2006/C 310/70)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 294, 2.12.2006

   Past publications

      OJ C 281, 18.11.2006

      OJ C 261, 28.10.2006

      OJ C 249, 14.10.2006

      OJ C 237, 30.9.2006

      OJ C 224, 16.9.2006

      OJ C 212, 2.9.2006

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 179, 10.7.2004

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/20

         (2004/C 190/33)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 179, 10.7.2004

   Past publications

      OJ C 168, 26.6.2004

      OJ C 156, 12.6.2004

      OJ C 146, 29.5.2004

      OJ C 106, 30.4.2004

      OJ C 94, 17.4.2004

      OJ C 85, 3.4.2004

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

               CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case C-490/06: Order of the President of the Court of 10 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/30

         Order of the President of the Court of 10 May 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-490/06) (1)

   (2007/C 183/57)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Joined Cases T-425/07 and T-426/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (100 and 300) (Community trade mark — Applications for Community figurative marks 100 and 300 — Statement as to the scope of protection — Article 38(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 37(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Lack of distinctive character)

text:
               16.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 11/24

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 November 2009 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM (100 and 300)
   (Joined Cases T-425/07 and T-426/07) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Applications for Community figurative marks 100 and 300 - Statement as to the scope of protection - Article 38(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 37(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Lack of distinctive character)
   2010/C 11/46
   Language of the case: Polish

      Parties

      Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. (Częstochowa, Poland) (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Montalto and K. Zajfert, Agents)

      Re:

   Two actions brought against the decisions of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2007 (Cases R 1274/2006-4 and R 1275/2006-4), concerning the applications for registration of the figurative marks 100 and 300 as Community trade marks.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the actions;

               2.

               Orders Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol sp. z o.o. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.


title: Case T-392/07: Action brought on 12 October 2007 — Strack v Commission

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/46

         Action brought on 12 October 2007 — Strack v Commission
   (Case T-392/07)
   (2007/C 297/93)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Guido Strack (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decisions adopted by the Commission — either actually or in the form of a deemed refusal under Article 8(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 — in the context of the processing of the applicant's application for access to documents of 20 June 2007 and his confirmatory application of 23 July 2007 or, in the alternative, his confirmatory applications of 15 August 2007;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant compensation for the immaterial and moral damage suffered by the applicant as a result of the processing of his application, of an appropriate amount, but at least symbolic damages in the amount of 1 Euro;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant applied, on the one hand, for access to certain documents in connection with confirmatory applications for access to documents under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) which the Commission rejected wholly or partially and, on the other hand, access to documents relating to Case T-110/04. He was refused access to those documents or access was not granted within the period provided for.
   In support of his application, the applicant submits that the defendant has infringed Article 255 EC as well as Article 2(1), (4) and (6)ff of Regulation No 1049/2001. In addition, the applicant claims that there has been an infringement of the principles of good administration and Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-236/09: Action brought on 8 June 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/26

         Action brought on 8 June 2009 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
   (Case T-236/09)
   2009/C 193/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and M. Dermitzakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission’s decision to reject the bid of the applicant, filed in response to the open Call for Tenders RTD-R4-2007-001 Lot 1 for the ‘On-site development expertise (intra-muros)’ and for Lot 2 Off-site development projects (extra-muros) (OJ 2007/S 238-288854) communicated to the applicant by two separate letters dated 27 March 2009 and all further decisions of the Commission including the one to award the contract to the successful contractor;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 69 445 200 (33 271 920 for Lot 1 and 36 173 280 for Lot 2);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant’s legal costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if current application is rejected.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In the present case the applicant seeks the annulment of the defendant’s decisions to reject its bid submitted in response to a call for an open tender for external service provision for development, studies and support of information systems (RTD-R4-2007-001-ISS-FP7) both for Lot 1 for the ‘On-site development expertise (intra-muros)’ and for Lot 2 Off-site development projects (extra-muros) and to award the contract to the successful contractor. The applicant further requests compensation for the alleged damages in account of the tender procedure.
   In support of its claims the applicant puts forward following pleas in law.
   First, the applicant claims that the defendant committed various and manifest errors of assessment and that it refused to provide any justification or explanation to the applicant in breach of the financial regulation (1) and its implementing rules as well as in breach of directive 2004/18 (2) and of Article 253 EC.
   Second, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the financial regulation by obliging tenderers to extend their tenders against their will. In addition, the applicant argues that even if one assumed that the defendant had right to do so, quod non, it was in violation of the principles of good administration, transparency and equal treatment that it decided to proceed with the completion of the award process even after the expiration of the extension as, in the applicant’s opinion, no contract can be signed when one or more tenders are not valid anymore.
   Third, the applicant claims that the outcome of the procedure laid down by the call for tenders was distorted by leakage of information associated with an attempt to impede the applicant from exercising its rights.
   Further, the applicant puts forward specific arguments in respect of each lot.
   In respect of the Lot 1, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed the principles of equal treatment and of good administration as it failed to observe the exclusion criteria provided for by Articles 93(1) and 94 of the financial regulation regarding one of the members of the winning consortium which was in breach of its contractual obligations to the defendant. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the winning tenderer was allowed illegally to use resources from companies based in non WTO/GPA countries and that this practice is illegal.
   In respect of the Lot 2, the applicant argues that the defendant should not allow tenderers subcontracting to non WTO/GPA countries to participate in the biding proceedings; should it do so, the applicant contends that it should proceed on a fair, transparent and non discriminatory manner, clarifying the selection criteria it would use for excluding certain companies or accepting others. Therefore, in the applicant’s opinion, the defendant applied particularly discriminatory approach failing to describe the selection criteria it used to select tenderers. Furthermore, it submits that the defendant failed to observe the exclusion criteria provided for by Articles 93(1) and 94 of the financial regulation and Articles 133a and 134 of the implementing rules and Article 45 of Directive 2004/18 and intending to exclude from public procurement companies that have either been condemned or that have been involved in illegal activities such as fraud, corruption, briberies and professional misconduct. The applicant submits that in the present case the winning tenderer has acknowledged its involvement to the above activities and has been condemned by the German courts.
   Finally, the applicant also claims that the defendant committed several manifest errors of assessment in respect of both lots and regarding the quality of the tenderer’s proposal for the overall management of the service, for ordering services and for delivery of services as well as the tenderer’s technological proposal in the domain of the lots.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ 2002 L 248, p. 1)

      (2)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ 2004 L 134, p. 114)


title: Case T-629/14: Action brought on 21 August 2014 — Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM (Shape of a car)

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/26

         Action brought on 21 August 2014 — Jaguar Land Rover v OHIM (Shape of a car)
   (Case T-629/14)
   2014/C 361/40
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Jaguar Land Rover Ltd (Coventry, United Kingdom) (represented by: F. Delord and R. Grewal, Solicitors)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 April 2014 given in Case R 1622/2013-2.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The 3D mark representing a shape of a car for goods in Classes 12, 14 and 28 — Community trade mark application No. 1 1 3 88  411

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected the CTM application in part

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal in part

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.


title: Case F-85/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — 2001/2002 Appraisal — Career Development Report — Compliance with an annulling judgment — Effects of the withdrawal of an act — Establishment of the objectives)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/48

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 14 September 2010 — Rossi Ferreras v Commission
   (Case F-85/09) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - 2001/2002 Appraisal - Career Development Report - Compliance with an annulling judgment - Effects of the withdrawal of an act - Establishment of the objectives)
   2010/C 317/85
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Francisco Rossi Ferreras (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the applicant’s Career Development Report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Mr Rossi Ferreras’s action;

               2.

               Orders Mr Rossi Ferreras to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19/12/2009, p. 45.


title: Case T-223/17: Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)

text:
               26.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/21

         Action brought on 18 April 2017 — Adapta Color v EUIPO — Coatings Foreign IP (ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS)
   (Case T-223/17)
   (2017/C 202/36)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Adapta Color, SL (Peniscola, Spain) (represented by: G. Macías Bonilla, G. Marín Raigal and E. Armero Lavie, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Coatings Foreign IP Co. LLC (Wilmington, Delaware, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: European Union figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ADAPTA POWDER COATINGS’ — European Union trade mark No 3 383 015

      Procedure before EUIPO: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 6 February 2017 in Case R 2522/2015-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               uphold the present action in its entirety;

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order the defendant and, where appropriate, the intervener, to pay the costs of the present proceedings, as well as the costs incurred in the proceedings for a declaration of invalidity and the subsequent appeal proceedings before EUIPO.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c), Article 7(3), Article 52(1)(a) and Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of fundamental principles and basic procedural requirements, such as the burden of proof, the obligation to state reasons for decisions, the rights of defence or to be heard, and the principles of legal certainty, equal treatment and sound administration.


title: Case C-104/06: Action brought on  22 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden

text:
               22.4.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/7

         Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Sweden
   (Case C-104/06)
   (2006/C 96/13)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by L. Ström van Lier and R. Lyal, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by adopting and maintaining in force tax legislation according to which deferred taxation on capital gains which arise on the sale of owner-occupied property when the taxable person acquires a replacement property is permitted only if the property sold and the property acquired are both within Swedish territory, the Kingdom of Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18, 39, 43 and 56(1) EC and Articles 28, 31 and 40 EEA.

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Sweden to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Swedish income tax law contains provisions on deferred taxation on the sale of private immovable property and the rights thereto. A taxpayer may defer taxation if he/she accounts for capital gains on the basis of a sale which includes a permanent dwelling in Sweden and has acquired or intends to acquire a replacement property in Sweden and has moved or intends to move into the replacement property. However, no deferral of taxation is permitted if the properties sold and newly acquired are situated outside Swedish territory. The above conditions constitute a clear obstacle to the exercise of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the EC Treaty and the EEA Agreement.
   The Swedish rules are not appropriate to ensure the coherence of the Swedish tax system since, with regard to a single taxpayer, there is no direct link between the fiscal advantage (the deferred taxation) and the compensation for that advantage through a tax levy within the framework of the same taxation. In all the circumstances, the Swedish rules are disproportionate to the aim they seek to achieve.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 February 2005 in Case C-260/02: P Michael Becker v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Appeal — Officials — Invalidity pension — Application to begin the invalidity procedure during a period of leave on personal grounds — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/18

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 28 February 2005
   in Case C-260/02: P Michael Becker v Court of Auditors of the European Communities (1)

   (Appeal - Officials - Invalidity pension - Application to begin the invalidity procedure during a period of leave on personal grounds - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
   (2005/C 182/34)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-260/02 P: appeal under Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice lodged at the Court on 15 July 2002 by Michael Becker, official at the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, resident in Luxembourg (Luxembourg) (lawyer: E. Fricke), the other party to the proceedings being the Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Agents: initially P. Giusta and B. Schäfer, then J.-M. Stenier and M. Bavendamm) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and J. Makarczyk, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 28 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Becker is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Corrigendum to the Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF v Commission (Case T 747/15) (OJ C 78, 29.2.2016)

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/51

         Corrigendum to the Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF v Commission
   (Case T 747/15)
   (
         Official Journal of the European Union C 78 of 29.2.2016.
      )
   (2016/C 136/74)
   The notice in the OJ in Case T-747/15 EDF v Commission should read as follows:

         ‘Action brought on 22 December 2015 — EDF v Commission
         (Case T-747/15)
         (2016/C 078/35)
         Language of the case: French

            Parties

            Applicant: Électricité de France (EDF) (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Debroux, lawyer)

            Defendant: European Commission

            Form of order sought

         The applicant claims that the Court should:

                     —

                     principally, annul Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Commission Decision of 22 July 2015 on State aid SA.13869 (C 68/2002) (ex NN 80/2002) — reclassification as capital of the tax-exempt accounting provisions for the renewal of the high-voltage transmission network (RAG) implemented by France in favour of EDF (“the contested decision”) for infringement of essential procedural requirements, errors of law and errors of fact;

                     —

                     in the alternative, annul Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the contested decision, in that the amount that EDF was required to reimburse was very significantly overestimated, and

                     —

                     in any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs.

            Pleas in law and main arguments

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

                     1.

                     First plea, alleging infringement of Article 266 TFEU.

                     2.

                     Second plea, alleging infringement of Article 107 TFEU. That plea is composed of two branches:

                                 —

                                 First branch, concerning the applicability of the private investor test, which is divided into five parts.

                                             —

                                             First part, according to which the Commission, without justification or stating reasons, did not take into account numerous documents and pieces of evidence which were duly submitted to it by France and EDF.

                                             —

                                             Second part, according to which the Commission systematically confused the elements concerning respectively the applicability and the application of the private investor test.

                                             —

                                             Third part, according to which the Commission wrongly ruled out the applicability of the prudent private investor criterion, solely because, in examining the measure, France had taken into account inter alia considerations relating to its status as a public authority, alongside considerations relating to its status as a shareholder.

                                             —

                                             Fourth part, according to which the Commission wrongly individuated an obligation on the part of EDF to have a formal business plan in order to justify the applicability of the prudent private investor criterion.

                                             —

                                             Fifth part, according to which the Commission disregarded the nature and purpose of that measure, its context, the objective it pursued and the rules to which it was subject.

                                 —

                                 Second branch, concerning the application of the private investor test, which is divided into three parts.

                                             —

                                             First part, according to which the Commission wrongly concluded that the Oxera Report was not admissible as evidence.

                                             —

                                             Second part, according to which the Commission’s methodology is vitiated by clear failings. First, the Commission took into account neither the context of the period in question, nor the criteria that investors at that time would have used. Secondly, the Commission’s “tax gift” hypothesis not only constitutes an error of law, but also gave rise to errors in the evaluation of the adequacy of the investment. In the third place, the Commission committed multiple methodological errors, each of which suffices to demonstrate clearly that the private investor criterion was not applied.

                                             —

                                             Third part, concerning the consequences of the methodological errors committed by the Commission.

                     3.

                     Third plea, alleging a failure to state reasons for the contested decision.

               In support of the action, the applicant also raises two pleas in law in the alternative.

                     1.

                     First plea raised in the alternative, alleging that recovery of the majority of the aid is time barred. That plea in divided into two branches:

                                 —

                                 First branch, according to which the aid in question was mainly existing aid stemming from a measure implemented before the European electricity market was opened to competition.

                                 —

                                 Second branch, according to which a significant portion of the alleged aid stems from a measure implemented more than ten years before the first formal action taken in the investigation.

                     2.

                     Second plea raised in the alternative, alleging errors of calculation committed by the Commission in determining the alleged aid. That plea in divided into three branches:

                                 —

                                 First branch, according to which the Commission erred in relation to the total amount of the reserves.

                                 —

                                 Second branch, according to which the Commission erred in relation to the applicable tax rate.

                                 —

                                 Third branch, according to which the amount of the alleged aid should be reviewed on the basis of the correct information.’


title: Case T-395/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  10 May 2006  — Air One SpA v Commission of the European Communities (State aid — Air transport — Complaint — Failure by the Commission to define its position — Action for failure to act — Time-limit — Admissibility)

text:
               15.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/25

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 May 2006 — Air One SpA v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-395/04) (1)

   (State aid - Air transport - Complaint - Failure by the Commission to define its position - Action for failure to act - Time-limit - Admissibility)
   (2006/C 165/49)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Air One SpA (Chieti, Italy) (represented by: G. Belotti and M. Padellaro, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: V. Di Bucci and E. Righini, Agents)
   Re:
   Application Action under Article 232 EC for a declaration that the Commission has unlawfully failed to define its position on the applicant's complaint concerning aid granted to the air carrier Ryanair by the Italian authorities
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs

      (1)  OJ C 300, 4.12.2004.


title: Case F-124/11: Action brought on 24 November 2011 — ZZ v FRONTEX

text:
               28.1.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 25/72

      Action brought on 24 November 2011 — ZZ v FRONTEX
      (Case F-124/11)
      (2012/C 25/141)
      Language of the case: English

         Parties

         Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. A. Pappas, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (FRONTEX)

         Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

      The annulment of the decision to revoke a previous decision concerning the renewal of the contract of employment of the applicant.

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the European Union Civil Service Tribunal should:

                  —

                  Annul the decision of 28 March 2011 of the Executive Director of FRONTEX;

                  —

                  annul the decision of 11 August 2011 of the FRONTEX Executive Director;

                  —

                  order FRONTEX to pay the costs.


title: Case T-367/07: Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/34

         Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Dow AgroSciences and Others v Commission
   (Case T-367/07)
   (2007/C 283/63)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom), DOW AgroSciences BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Dow AgroSciences Danmark A/S (Lyngby-Taarbæk, Denmark), Dow AgroSciences GmbH (Stade, Germany), Dow AgroSciences SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Export SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary), Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl (Milan, Italy), Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o. (Warsaw, Poland), Dow AgroSciences Distribution SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Iberica, SA (Madrid, Spain), Dow AgroSciences s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic) and Dow AgroSciences LLC (Indianapolis, United States) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Order the annulment of Commission Decision 2007/437/EC;

               —

               declare the illegality and inapplicability vis-à-vis the first applicant and the review of its Haloxyfop-R dossier of Article 20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants are identical or similar to those relied on in Case T-326/07 Cheminova and Others v Commission.


title: Case T-580/14: Action brought on 4 August 2014  — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission

text:
               15.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/70

         Action brought on 4 August 2014 — Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa v Commission
   (Case T-580/14)
   2014/C 315/115
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Aduanas y Servicios Fornesa, SL (Lleida, Spain) (represented by: I. Toda Jiménez, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               recognise and declare the applicant’s right to the remission of the customs duties in the amount of EUR 2 4 53  003.38 imposed on it in the assessment decision of 27 June 2011 of the Dependencia Regional de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de la delegación Especial de Cataluña (Regional Customs and Excise Office, Catalonia), under the tax heading ‘Community external tariff’, in respect of the financial years 2006, 2007 and 2008, and

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs and expenses in this action for annulment.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant in the present proceedings seeks the annulment of the Commission decision of 15 April 2014 (File REM 02/2012) refusing it remission of customs duties imposed on import operations of ‘flavoured or coloured sugar syrups’ originally declared as processed in Andorra, operations in which it acted as customs agent and indirect representative of the importer.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 239 of the Customs Code, as a result of the Commission’s error in its assessment of the special situation and failure to assess the facts relevant to the decision.

                           —

                           In that regard, it is argued that (i) the customs agent was unaware of the manufacturing process of the imported product, which was the decisive factor in requiring the payment of the customs duties, (ii) the importer’s operations were complex and were concealed from the customs agent, (iii) the Spanish customs authorities did not inform the latter of their suspicions concerning the importer’s conduct, nor did they adopt any form of precautionary measure, (iv) the EUR-1 certificates by which the imports were covered were approved on two occasions by the Andorran authorities and (v) even the first analyses of the Spanish customs authorities confirmed that the products were entitled to preferential treatment.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code, since there was no ‘deception’ or ‘obvious negligence’ which would exclude the remission of duty claimed.

                           —

                           The applicant states in that regard that the Commission simply lists a series of possible actions which the customs agent could allegedly have taken and which could have led it to call in question the lawfulness of the import operations. However, it cannot in any case be inferred from this that there was any ‘deception’ or ‘obvious negligence’ on the part of the customs agent, and the remission of duty is not therefore precluded.

                           —

                           The applicant also stresses the good faith and diligence displayed by the customs agent at all times.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-137/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land v Faxworld Vorgründungsgesellschaft Peter Hünninghausen und Wolfgang Klein GbR (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of the Sixth VAT Directive — Right of a Vorgründungsgesellschaft (civil-law partnership the object of which is to prepare the means necessary for the activities of a capital company yet to be formed) to deduct input VAT — Transfer for consideration of the totality of those means upon formation of the capital company — Transfer not subject to VAT in consequence of the exercise by the Member State concerned of the option provided for in Article 5(8) of the Sixth VAT Directive)

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/20

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 29 April 2004
   in Case C-137/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land v Faxworld Vorgründungsgesellschaft Peter Hünninghausen und Wolfgang Klein GbR (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Interpretation of the Sixth VAT Directive - Right of a Vorgründungsgesellschaft (civil-law partnership the object of which is to prepare the means necessary for the activities of a capital company yet to be formed) to deduct input VAT - Transfer for consideration of the totality of those means upon formation of the capital company - Transfer not subject to VAT in consequence of the exercise by the Member State concerned of the option provided for in Article 5(8) of the Sixth VAT Directive)
   (2004/C 118/35)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-137/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land and Faxworld Vorgründungsgesellschaft Peter Hünninghausen und Wolfgang Klein GbR — on the interpretation of Article 17(2) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:
   A partnership established for the sole purpose of founding a capital company is entitled to deduct the input tax paid on supplies of goods and services where its only output transaction in the performance of its object was to effect by formal act the transfer for consideration of the supplies obtained to that company once founded and where, because the Member State concerned has exercised the options provided for in Articles 5(8) and 6(5) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, a transfer of a totality of assets is not deemed to be a supply of goods or services.

      (1)  OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.


title: Case T-103/13 P: Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Commission v Cocchi and Falcione (Appeal — Cross-appeal — Civil service — Officials — Pensions — Transfer of national pension rights — Proposal to add years of pensionable service — Act not having an adverse effect — Inadmissibility of the action at first instance — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               30.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 398/33

         Judgment of the General Court of 13 October 2015 — Commission v Cocchi and Falcione
   (Case T-103/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Cross-appeal - Civil service - Officials - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Proposal to add years of pensionable service - Act not having an adverse effect - Inadmissibility of the action at first instance - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations))
   (2015/C 398/43)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and D. Martin, agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: Giorgio Cocchi (Wezembeek-Oppem, Belgium) and Nicola Falcione (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by S. Orlandi, J. N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, subsequently by: S. Orlandi, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 December 2012 in Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (F-122/10), ECR-SC, EU:F:2012:180) seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (First Chamber) of 11 December 2012 in Cocchi and Falcione v Commission (F-122/10) in so far as it declares admissible and well-founded the action for annulment of the acts (referred to in that judgment as ‘decisions’) of 12 and 23 February 2010, issued by the European Commission to Mr Nicola Falcione and M. Giorgio Cocchi respectively, as those acts withdrew the proposals made to Mr Cocchi and Mr Falcione, stating the result in additional years of pensionable service that a potential transfer of their pension rights would generate.

               2.

               Dismisses the cross-appeal.

               3.

               Dismisses the action brought by Messrs Cocchi and Falcione before the Civil Service Tribunal in Case F-122/10 in so far as it seeks annulment of the acts of 12 and 23 February 2010, issued by the European Commission to Mr Nicola Falcione and M. Giorgio Cocchi respectively, as those acts withdrew the proposals made to Mr Cocchi and Mr Falcione, stating the result in additional years of pensionable service that a potential transfer of their pension rights would generate.

               4.

               Orders Messrs Cocchi and Falcione to bear their own costs in the present instance and to pay those incurred by the Commission associated with the cross-appeal. The Commission shall bear its own costs associated with the appeal.

               5.

               Orders Messrs Cocchi and Falcione and the Commission to bear their own costs associated with the proceedings at first instance.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 4.5.2013.


title: Action brought on 9 January 1998 by A. A. M. van Hest against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-11/98)

text:
C 72/26              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.3.98
investment possible, not only investment aid was provided           moreover, erroneously classified by the Commission as
but also investment grants of 8 % under the Investitionszu-         operational aids, even though, under both the criteria
lagengesetz (Investment Grants Law) 1993, to which each             recognised by the Commission itself and those recognised
investor in the new Bundesländer was statutorily entitled           by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance,
on fulfilling the conditions. The Investitionszulagengesetz         they were unambiguously dependent upon the carrying
1993 was approved by the Commission as an aid                       out of investments and could thus be regarded only as
programme and provided, inter alia, that the investments            investment aids. Because of that misclassification, the
benefiting from the programme had to be concluded                   Commission left the provisions of Article 92(3)(a) of the
before 1 January 1997. Through circumstances outside the            EC Treaty unapplied, even though they were relevant in
applicant's control (e.g. numerous bomb finds on the                this case (in so far as the aid was not in any event
construction site), it became apparent that completion by           compatible with the common market under Article 92(2)(c)
the end of December 1996 was impossible in practical                of the Treaty).
terms. Therefore, on the initiative of the Bundesland
Saxony-Anhalt, a bill to amend the Investitionszulagenge-           3. Infringement of the general Community law principle
setz was introduced, and, during 1995 in connection with            of proportionality, as expressed in Article 3b of the EC
the Jahressteuergesetz 1996, the amendment was decided              Treaty, in that the Commission declared Paragraph 18.1 of
upon. Paragraph 18.1 of the Jahressteuergesetz 1996                 the Jahressteuergesetz 1996 as a whole, and thus in
inserted into Paragraph 3.1.3 of the Investitionszulagenge-         relation to the applicant also, to be incompatible with the
setz, for the date by which the investments were to be              common market.
completed, the year 1999' instead of 1997' (i.e. requiring
completion before 1 January 1999).                                  The applicant submits that it was thereby affected to an
                                                                    extent which was disproportionate and not necessary in
                                                                    achieving the Commission's purpose. The Commission
In the contested decision, the Commission held that to be           could have declared Paragraph 18.1 incompatible with the
a new, additional State aid, which was unlawful and                 common market only in so far as projects other than the
incompatible with the common market. It called upon the             applicant's were concerned. That would have been
Federal Republic of Germany to annul Paragraph 18.1 of              appropriate from the European law standpoint and
the Jahressteuergesetz 1996 and to reclaim all aids granted         possible from the point of view of German law.
thereunder.
                                                                    4. Breach of essential procedural requirements
The applicant makes four legal arguments:
                                                                    The Commission erroneously classified the investment
                                                                    grant relating to the applicant, in the version appearing in
1. Failure to apply Article 92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty               Paragraph 18.1 of the Jahressteuergesetz 1996, as a new
                                                                    additional aid, rather than (correctly) as an approved
                                                                    existing aid. As a result, it failed to adopt the correct
The Commission should have verified whether that                    procedure and propose an appropriate measure to the
derogation applied, especially as the Federal Republic of           Federal Republic of Germany. Moreover, the reasons
Germany had expressly requested that it should be                   stated for the decision were not sufficient and infringed
applied. In its notice on the opening of the main                   Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
verification procedure, the Commission expressed the view
that the rule could not apply. Although, in the course of
the procedure, the Federal Republic of Germany made
further submissions as to the applicability of the rule and
the existence of the conditions, especially in relation to the
applicant, the Commission carried out no verification               Action brought on 9 January 1998 by A. A. M. van Hest
whatever. Since, moreover, no reasons were stated for the           against the Council of the European Union and the
failure to apply the rule, the applicant maintains that there                Commission of the European Communities
has been a breach of Article 190 of the EC Treaty. The                                     (Case T-11/98)
requirements of Article 92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty had been
                                                                                (98/C 72/57)
fulfilled, since the Saxony-Anhalt region was an area
affected by the division of Germany, and the aid was
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
required in order to compensate for the disadvantages
caused. Paragraph 18.1 of the Jahressteuergesetz 1996 was
therefore compatible with the common market pursuant                An action against the Council of the European Union and
to Article 92(2)(c) of the EC Treaty, at least in so far as         the Commission of the European Communities was
the applicant's project was concerned.                              brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                    Communities on 9 January 1998 by A. A. M. van Hest, of
                                                                    Moergestel (Netherlands), represented by A. A. M. Beek,
2. Defective application of Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty          of the Tilburg Bar.
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
The Commission failed to recognise that the extension of
the investment period did not constitute an additional aid          Ð declare that the European Economic Community is
over and above the investment grants. Those grants were,                liable in damages to the applicant,
 ---pagebreak--- 7.3.98               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 72/27
Ð declare that the European Economic Community is                  Chambers of Me Marc Loesch & Wolter, 11 rue Goethe,
    liable to the applicant for the loss of income suffered        Luxembourg.
    by him as a result of the application of Council
    Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 Mach 1984 and of
    Council Regulation (EEC) No 764/89 of 20 March                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
    1989 amending Regulation (EEC) No 857/84,
    inasmuch as those regulations contain(ed) no provision
    enabling a representative reference quantity to be             Ð annul the decision of 4 November 1997, whereby the
    granted to SLOM transferees who, pursuant to an                    Council refused to grant access to the document
    undertaking given in accordance with Council                       requested by the applicant,
    Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77 of 17 May 1977, did
    not supply any milk during the reference year selected
    by the Member State concerned,                                 Ð order the Council to pay the applicant's costs pursuant
                                                                       to the Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the
                                                                       Court of First Instance, including the costs of any
Ð declare that the applicant has suffered a loss of income             interveners.
    amounting to the difference between, on the one hand,
    the revenue Ð including inter alia income from sales
    and additions to his herd Ð which he would in the              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    ordinary course of events have received from the
    quantities of milk that he would have delivered if,
    during the period from 1 April 1984 (the date on               The applicant, a Member of the European Parliament,
    which Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 entered into force)           seeks the annulment of a refusal by the defendant to grant
    to 31 March 1994 (the date of expiry of the 1993/              access to a certain document which was requested
    1994 levy period), had he been in possession of the            pursuant to Council Decision 93/731/EC of 20 December
    milk reference quantity to which he was entitled, and,         1993 on public access to Council documents. The
    on the other hand, the income which he actually                document in question is the Report from the Common
    received during that period;                                   Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) Working Group on
                                                                   Conventional Arms Exports, approved on 14Ð15
                                                                   November 1996, on the implementation of the common
Ð declare that interest at the rate of 8 % per annum, or           criteria on arms exports agreed by the European Council
    such other rate as the Court shall in its discretion           in 1991 and 1992.
    think fit, is payable to the applicant on the
    compensation due to him, covering the period from
    the date of delivery of the Court's judgment to the            In support of the form of order which it seeks the
    date of payment in full,                                       applicant submits that the contested refusal constitutes:
Ð order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                   Ð a misapplication of the exceptions laid down in
                                                                       Article 4(1) of the above mentioned Council Decision.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    First, the Council has refused access to the Report in
                                                                       its entirety, without any explanation why its disclosure
                                                                       could be harmful for the EU's relations with third
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                 countries'. The mandatory and absolute terms in
Case T-146/97.                                                         which the Article 4(1) is drafted does not permit such
                                                                       an approach. Second, even should it appear that the
                                                                       disclosure of certain aspects of the Report might
                                                                       undermine the protection of the public interest, the
                                                                       applicant still submits that the Council has acted in
                                                                       breach of its duty to provide access to those parts of
                                                                       the document not covered by the exception. The
Action brought on 13 January 1998 by Heidi Hautala,                    failure on the part of the defendant to examine in the
Member of the European Parliament against the Council                  present case the question whether the document
                   of the European Union                               should be released if certain parts were blanked out
                       (Case T-14/98)                                  constitutes further evidence of the Council's failure to
                                                                       give the applicant's request any careful consideration
                        (98/C 72/58)                                   and should in itself be regarded as constituting an
                                                                       infringement of Article 4(1),
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                   Ð a breach of the fundamental principle of the
An action against the Council of the European Union was                Community law that citizens of the European Union
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             should be granted the widest and fullest possible
Communities on 13 January 1998 by Heidi Hautala, MEP,                  access to documents of the institutions of the Union,
represented by Onno W. Brouwer and Thomas Janssens,                    and of the principle of the protection of legitimate
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       expectations,


title: Case T-185/17: Action brought on 21 March 2017 — PlasticsEurope v ECHA

text:
               22.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/34

         Action brought on 21 March 2017 — PlasticsEurope v ECHA
   (Case T-185/17)
   (2017/C 161/48)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: PlasticsEurope (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: R. Cana, E. Mullier and F. Mattioli, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Chemicals Agency

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               annul the ECHA’s decision, published on 12 January 2017, to include Bisphenol A in the list of candidate substances for authorisation as a substance of very high concern in accordance with Article 59 of the REACH Regulation;

               —

               order ECHA to pay the costs of the proceedings; and

               —

               take such other or further measure as justice may require.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision breaches Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation.

                           —

                           The contested decision breaches Article 2(8)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (OJ 2006 L 396, p. 1, the ‘REACH Regulation’), since intermediate uses are exempt from the entire Title VII pursuant to Article 2(8)(b) of the REACH Regulation, and are thus outside the scope of Articles 57 and 59 and outside the scope of authorisation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the contested decision breaches the principle of proportionality, since the inclusion of intermediate uses in the candidate list exceeds the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to attain the objective pursued and is not the least onerous measure to which the European Chemicals Agency could have had recourse.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment, by failing to take into consideration the information at its disposal showing the uses of BPA as an intermediate.

                           —

                           The European Chemicals Agency failed to take into account the information that was made available in the Annex XV dossier for BPA under the REACH Regulation.


20150731046617022015/C 270/316182014TC27020150817EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20150629252621Case T-618/14: Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of a Mexican tortilla) (Community trade mark — Application for three-dimensional Community mark — Shape of a Mexican tortilla — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
 ---documentbreak--- C2702015EN2510120150629EN0031251262Judgment of the General Court of 29 June 2015 — Grupo Bimbo v OHIM (Shape of a Mexican tortilla)
   (Case T-618/14) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Community trade mark — Application for three-dimensional Community mark — Shape of a Mexican tortilla — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)’2015/C 270/31Language of the case: Spanish
      Parties

      Applicant: Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV (Mexico City, Mexico) (represented by N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by S. Palmero Cabezas, subsequently by J. Garrido Otaola, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 June 2014 (Case R 2449/2013-2) concerning an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a Mexican tortilla.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

            1.

            Dismisses the action;

            2.

            Orders Grupo Bimbo, SAB de CV to pay the costs.

      (
         1
      )	OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Case C-468/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cosenza — Italy) — CCIAA di Cosenza v Ciesse srl (Request for a preliminary ruling — Rules of Procedure — Articles 53(2), 93(a), and 99 — Directive 200817/EC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Article 5(1)(c) — Scope — Annual duty paid to local chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/52

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 20 June 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Cosenza — Italy) — CCIAA di Cosenza v Ciesse srl
   (Case C-468/12) (1)

   (Request for a preliminary ruling - Rules of Procedure - Articles 53(2), 93(a), and 99 - Directive 200817/EC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Article 5(1)(c) - Scope - Annual duty paid to local chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture)
   2013/C 225/92
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring Court

   Tribunale di Cosenza

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Camera di Commercio, Industria, Artigianato e Agricoltura (CCIAA) di Cosenza

      Defendant: Ciesse srl, in liquidation

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Ordinario di Cosenza — Interpretation of Article 5 of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11) — Imposition of an annual fee for entry in the register of companies kept by the local chambers of commerce — Amount of the annual duty determined in a more favourable manner for individual undertakings, agricultural partnerships (‘societá semplici’) and law firms than for other economic undertakings

      Operative part of the order

   Article 5(1)(c) of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as not precluding the charging of an annual duty, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, paid to chambers of commerce, industry, crafts and agriculture by all undertakings registered or noted in the register kept by those chambers and calculated, in general, on the basis of their turnover, but fixed on a flat-rate basis for certain categories of undertakings, and, in particular, for undertakings individually owned or managed by natural persons.

      (1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.


title: Case T-41/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2008 — Vakakis v Commission (Community tendering procedure — Interim proceedings — Loss of an opportunity — Locus standi — Admissibility of the main application — Urgency — Measures of inquiry)

text:
               2.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 197/25

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2008 — Vakakis v Commission
   (Case T-41/08 R)
   (Community tendering procedure - Interim proceedings - Loss of an opportunity - Locus standi - Admissibility of the main application - Urgency - Measures of inquiry)
   (2008/C 197/44)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

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

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Wilderspin and G. Boudot, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for an order granting interim measures in the context of the service tender procedure EuropeAid/125241/C/SER/CY for the supply of ‘Technical Assistance to Support Rural Development Policy’ in the Northern Part of Cyprus.
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The application for measures of inquiry or organisation of procedure is dismissed.

               3.

               There is no need for a decision on the application for leave to intervene.

               4.

               Costs are reserved, except that Agriconsulting shall bear the costs incurred by it in connection with the submission of its application for leave to intervene.