title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of 3 May 1996, in the case of The Queen against Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and The Commissioners for Customs & Excise, ex parte: The National Farmers' Union, David Burnett and Sons Limited, R. S. and E. Wright Limited, Anglo Beef Processors Limited, United Kingdom Genetics (a firm), Wyjac Calves Limited, International Traders Ferry Limited, MFP International Limited, Interstate Truck Rental Limited and Vian Exports Limited, Interveners: Anglo Dutch Meat Exports Limited, Beck Food Group Limited, First City Trading Limited, Weddel Swift Limited, Carrex August Limited, Meatal Supplies (Wholesale Meats) Limited, Meat Marketing Services (UK) Limited, NWL (Ireland) Limited, Hibernia Foods plc, D. T. Duggins Limited, Swallow Foods International Limited and The British Association of Sheep Exporters (Case C-157/96)

text:
6 . 7 . 96          I EN |                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 197/13
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of               persons residing in another Member State are liable to pay
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of            compulsory contributions, even though their entitlement to
3 May 1996, in the case of The Queen against Ministry of              benefits is simultaneously excluded or suspended because of
Agriculture Fisheries and Food and The Commissioners for              their place of residence ?
Customs & Excise, ex parte: The National Farmers' Union,
David Burnett and Sons Limited, R. S. and E. Wright
Limited, Anglo Beef Processors Limited, United Kingdom
Genetics (a firm), Wyjac Calves Limited, International
Traders Ferry Limited, MFP International Limited,                     Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Interstate Truck Rental Limited and Vian Exports Limited,             Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 19 March 1996 in
Interveners: Anglo Dutch Meat Exports Limited, Beck Food              the case of Siidzucker AG Mannheim/Ochsenfurt v.
Group Limited, First City Trading Limited, Weddel Swift                                 Hauptzollamt Mannheim
Limited, Carrex August Limited, Meatal Supplies                                              ( Case C-161/96 )
(Wholesale Meats ) Limited, Meat Marketing Services ( UK )
Limited, NWL ( Ireland) Limited, Hibernia Foods pic, D. T.                                      ( 96/C 197/25 )
Duggins Limited, Swallow Foods International Limited and
          The British Association of Sheep Exporters                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Seventh Senate of
                         Case C-157/96 )                              the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 19 March
                          ( 96/C 197/23 )                             1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 13 May
                                                                      1 996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Siidzucker AG
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Mannheim/Ochsenfurt v . Hauptzollamt Mannheim on the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                 following question:
Justice, Queen's Bench Division, of 3 May 1996 , which was
received at the Court Registry on 8 May 1996 , for a                  Is    Commission     Regulation      ( EEC ) No 2670/81       of
preliminary ruling in the case of the Queen against Ministry          14 September 1981 laying down detailed implementing
of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and the Commissioners               rules in respect of sugar production in excess of the quota
for Customs & Excise, ex parte: The National Farmers'                 ( OJ L 262, 1981 , p . 14 ) in conjunction with Commission
Union and others , Interveners : Anglo Dutch Meat Exports             Regulation ( EEC ) No 3183/80 of 3 December 1980 laying
Limited and others, on the following question:                        down common detailed rules for the application of the
                                                                      system of import and export licences and advance fixing
Is Article 1 of Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March             certificates for agricultural products ( OJ L 338 , 1980, p . 1 )
 1996 on emergency measures to protect against bovine                 valid, having regard in particular to the Community law
spongiform encephalopathy f 1 ), Official Journal 1996,               principle of proportionality, in so far as its result is that
No L 78 , p. 47, invalid in whole or in part, in particular           sugar is deemed to have been disposed of on the internal
because the Commission lacked the power or else misused               market — that being the basis for levying the charge on
the power to adopt the Commission Decision or because it              sugar production — if it has actually been exported but
infringes the principle of proportionality ?                          without completion of the customs formalities, and proof
                                                                      consequently cannot be furnished by means of copy No 1 of
 H OJ No L 78 , 28 . 3 . 1996 , p . 47 .                              the export licence with the attributions and endorsements of
                                                                      the customs authorities ?
 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
 Karlsruhe by order of that court of 28 March 1996 in the              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
 case of Manfred Molenaar and Barbara Fath-Molenaar v.                Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 7 March 1996 in
      Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Baden-Wiirttemberg                   the case of A. Racke GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Mainz
                        ( Case C-160/96 )
                           ( 96/C 197/24 )                                                    ( Case C-162/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 197/26 )
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 European Communities by an order of the Eleventh                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Chamber of the Sozialgericht ( Social Court) Karlsruhe of             European Communities by a an order of the Seventh Senate
 28 March 1996, which was received at the Court Registry               of the Bundesfinanzhof ( Federal Finance Court) of 7 March
 on 13 May 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of              1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on 13 May
 Manfred      Molenaar       and   Barbara  Fath-Molenaar      v.      1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of A. Racke
 Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse (general local health                     GmbH & Co . v . Hauptzollamt Mainz on the following
 insurance fund ) Baden-Wiirttemberg on the following                  questions :
 question :
                                                                        1 . Is Council Regulation (EEC ) No 3300/91 of
 Are Articles 6 and 48 ( 2 ) of the EEC Treaty to be interpreted            11 November 1991 suspending the trade concessions
 as restricting the right of a Member State to set up a social              provided for by the Cooperation Agreement between
 security system covering the risk of need of care as part of               the European Economic Community and the Socialist
 statutory compulsory insurance arrangements under which                    Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( ] ) valid ?


title: Case C-550/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 29 December 2009 — Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof v E and F

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 29 December 2009 — Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof v E and F
   (Case C-550/09)
   2010/C 148/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Prosecutor: Generalbundesanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof

      Defendants: E, F

      Questions referred

               1.

               Taking account, if appropriate, of the amended procedure resulting from the decision of the Council of the European Union of 28 June 2007 (2007/445/EC), (1) is the listing on the basis of Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 (2) of 27 December 2001 of an organisation which has not brought proceedings contesting the decisions concerning it to be regarded as effective from the outset even if basic procedural guarantees were infringed in listing it?

               2.

               Are Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 to be interpreted as meaning that funds, financial assets and economic resources are made available to a legal person, group or entity included in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of the regulation, that there is involvement in such provision or that there is participation in activities to circumvent Article 2 of the regulation even where the provider is, himself, a member of the legal person, group or entity?

               3.

               Are Articles 2 and 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 to be interpreted as meaning that funds, financial assets and economic resources are made available to a legal person, group or entity included in the list referred to in Article 2(3) of the regulation, that there is involvement in such provision or that there is participation in activities to circumvent Article 2 of the regulation even where the asset to be provided already is, if only in the broader sense, accessible to the legal person, group or entity?

      (1)  Council Decision 2007/445/EC of 28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decisions 2006/379/EC and 2006/1008/EC (OJ 2007 L 169, p. 58).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).


title: Case T-753/14: Action brought on 14 November 2014  — Ice Mountain Ibiza v OHIM — Etyam (ocean beach club ibiza)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/36

         Action brought on 14 November 2014 — Ice Mountain Ibiza v OHIM — Etyam (ocean beach club ibiza)
   (Case T-753/14)
   (2015/C 026/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Ice Mountain Ibiza, SL (San Antonio, Spain) (represented by: J.L. Gracia Albero and F. Miazzetto, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Etyam, SL (Islas Baleares, Spain)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘ocean beach club ibiza’ — Application for registration No 1 0 6 10  491

      Procedure before OHIM: Partial opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 31 July 2014 in Case R 2293/2013-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs, including all those resulting to date from proceedings before the Opposition Division and the First Board of Appeal of OHIM at earlier stages of the proceedings which have led to the present action.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland, by order of that court of 27 March 1995, in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Case C-127/95)

text:
No C 174/4            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            8 . 7 . 95
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 1 . release of the funds is sought to pay a national of
                                                                                Member State B for goods exported by him from
1 . declare void the first indent of Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council                    Member State B to Serbia or Montenegro;
     Decision   94/ 800/EC        of 22     December     1994   in
     connection with Paragraph 1 of the Marrakesh Protocol                   2 . ( a ) the goods have been formally approved as
     and Article 4 ( 1 ) of the Agreement on Agriculture in                              intended strictly for medical purposes by the
     Annex 1A to the Agreement Establishing the World                                    United Nations Sanctions Committee pursuant
     Trade Organization ( WTO ), in so far as the Council has                            to UN Security Council Resolution 757;
     thereby confirmed the conclusion of the Community's                           ( b ) they have been exported pursuant to a prior
     Framework Agreement on Bananas with Costa Rica,                                     export authorization issued by the competent
     Colombia , Nicaragua and Venezuela ;                                                authorities of Member State B pursuant to
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1432/92 ;
2 . order the Council to pay the costs .
                                                                             3 . the national measures permit the release of funds in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                payment for the export of such goods from Member
                                                                                State A itself where the export authorization
                                                                                referred to at paragraph 2 ( b ) has been issued by the
Infringement of Community law of a higher order : The                              competent authorities of Member State A; and
Framework Agreement approved by the Council infringes
the fundamental rights of market operators in Groups A and                   4 . Member State A has decided that the adoption of
C ( within the meaning of Council Regulation ( EEC )                               such national measures is necessary or expedient for
No 404/93 ) to the freedom to pursue an occupation, to                             enabling UN Security Council Resolution 757 to be
equal treatment and to property ( in the business established                      effectively applied ?
and carried on by them ). The Framework Agreement leads
to the purchase of third-country bananas being made more                2 . Is the answer to question 1 affected by the provisions of
difficult than hitherto under Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 ,                 Article 234 of the EC Treaty ?
because a part of the tariff quota may henceforth be derived
only from certain countries, and those countries are                    (') OJ No L 151 , 3 . 6 . 1992 , p . 4 .
additionally authorized to issue export licences the
production of which is a precondition for the issuing of
import licences by the Community to operators of Groups A
and C. There are no obvious technical reasons to justify the
consequent further worsening in the position of traditional             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal in
importers of third-country bananas .                                    Northern Ireland , by order of that court of 27 March 1995 ,
                                                                        in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against the
                                                                                Ministry of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food
                                                                                ( Case C-127/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 174/08 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
 London, by order of that court of 27 May 1994 , in the case            in Northern Ireland of 27 March 1995 , which was received
 of The Queen against HM Treasury and the Bank of                       at the Court Registry on 18 April 1995 , for a preliminary
              England , ex parte: Centro-Com srl                        ruling in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against the
                         ( Case C-124/95 )                              Ministry of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food , on the
                            ( 95/C 174/07 )                              following questions :
                                                                         1 . Are Council Directive 81 /851 /EEC of 28 September
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
 European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal,                     States relating to veterinary medicinal products (') and
 London, of 27 May 1994, which was received at the Court                      Council Directive 8 1/852/EEC of 28 September 1981 on
 Registry on 11 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the                  the approximation of the laws of the Member States
 case of The Queen against HM Treasury and the Bank of                        relating to analytical , pharmaco-toxicological and
 England, ex parte -. Centro-Com srl , on the following                       clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing
 questions :                                                                  of veterinary medicinal products ( 2 ) ( and in particular
                                                                              Articles 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 29 to 31 , 35 , 40 and 41 of Directive
 1 . Is it compatible with the common commercial policy of                    81 / 851 /EEC and Part 1 of the Annex to Directive
      the Community and , in particular, Article 1 1 3 of the EC              8 1 /852/EEC in the form in which they existed prior to
      Treaty and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1432/92 of                     any amendment ) to be interpeted as permitting the
      1 June 1992 prohibiting trade between the European                      competent        authority      of    a    Member     State ,    in
      Economic Community and the Republics of Serbia and                      circumstances such as those hereinbefore described :
      Montenegro (') for Member State A to adopt national
      measures which prohibit the release of funds located in                 ( a ) to require an applicant for a marketing
      Member State A but belonging to a person in Serbia or                           authorization in respect of a veterinary medicinal
      Montenegro in circumstances where :                                             product ('the Product') to identify or to arrange to
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 7 . 95                I EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                              No C 174/5
             be identified to the competent authority the names                      ( ii ) If they are to be applied by the national
             and addresses of any and all manufacturers of a                                    court, by reference to what criteria and
             particular substance ('the Substance ') from whom                                  considerations must the proportionality of the
             the applicant intends to purchase quantities of the                                requests and requirements be assessed ?
             Substance for use in the manufacture by the
             applicant of one of the active ingredients ('the
             Active Ingredient') of the Product, and to supply or         5 . Are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted
             arrange to be supplied to the competent authority                as prohibiting requests and requirements such as those
             details of the site(s ) where the Substance would be             described above, or any of them ?
             manufactured and of the manufacturing processes
             and control testing procedures used by the                   6 . ( a ) Is Article 40 of Directive 81 /851 /EEC to be
             manufacturer of the Substance ;
                                                                                interpreted as applying to the requests and
                                                                                requirements described above ?
     ( b ) to require an applicant for a marketing
             authorization to submit to the competent authority
              for approval the results of such control tests as are           ( b ) If so, in what circumstances and by reference to
              required to be carried out upon each batch of the                      what criteria are the reasons for the imposition of
              Substance purchased by the applicant, and not to                       such requests, and requirements to be treated as
             release any batch of the Product until such approval                    inadequate for the purposes of Article 40 , and were
              has been given in respect of the relevant batch of the                 such requests and requirements adequately
              Substance;                                                             reasoned in the present case ?
      ( c ) to require the applicant ( whether by specific licence        7. ( a ) Is a Member State liable as a matter of Community
             conditions or by withholding grant of a marketing                       law to compensate an undertaking in damages for
              authorization or otherwise ) either to comply with                     loss which it has suffered as a consequence of the
              one or both of the above requirements or to market                     imposition of requests and requirements such as
              the Product only where it has been prepared using                      those described above which :
              supplies of the Active Ingredient purchased from a
              specified third party rather than manufactured by
              the applicant itself;                                                       ( I ) are incompatible with the provisions of
                                                                                Directives 81 /851 /EEC and/or 81 /852/EEC ;
      ( d ) to suspend the time limits for a grant of a marketing
              authorization laid down by Article 8 of Directive                         ( ii ) infringe the principles of proportionality;
              81 /851 /EEC until the applicant has agreed to
              supply the information referred to in ( a )?                            ( iii ) are prohibited by Articles 30 to 36 of the EC
                                                                                Treaty;
2 . Is it material to the answers in questions 1 ( a ) to ( d )
     whether the process of manufacture of the product is                             ( iv ) are insufficiently reasoned within the meaning
     continuous or other than continuous and if so what                                         of Article 40 of Directive 81 / 851 /EEC ?
     would be the effect on the answers to those
      questions ?                                                              ( b ) If the answer to question 7 ( a ) ( i ), ( ii ), ( iii ) and ( iv ) or
                                                                                any of them is in the affirmative, under what
                                                                                conditions does such liabilitv arise ?
3 . Would it be material to the answers to questions 1 ( a ) to
      ( d ) if it were not reasonably possible for an applicant to
      obtain any of the information referred to in question               (') OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p . 1 .
       1(1 ), and if so what would be the effect on the answers           (-) OJ No L 317, 6 . 11 . 1981 , p . 16 .
      to those questions ?
4 . ( a ) If the requests for further information and the other
              requirements described in question 1 , or any of
              them, are prima facie permissible under Directives
              81 /851 /EEC and 81 /852/EEC , must such requests
              and requirements comply with the Community law
              principle of proportionality ?                              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura
                                                                          Circondariale di Genova by order of that court of 19 April
       ( b ) If the answer to ( a ) is affirmative, are those              1995 in the case of Livia Balestra v. Istituto Nazionale della
              principles to be applied in this case by the national                                 Previdenza Sociale ( INPS )
              court or by the Court of Justice ?                                                         ( Case C-139/95 )
                                                                                ( 95 /C 174/09 )
       (c)     ( l ) If they are to be applied by the Court of
                     Justice, do the said requests and requirements
                     or any of them infringe the principles of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                     proportionality ?                                     European Communities by an order of the Pretura


title: Case C-594/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Simona Kornhaas v Thomas Dithmar, acting as liquidator of the assets of Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Insolvency proceedings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Article 4(1) — Determination of the applicable law — Legislation of a Member State laying down the obligation for a managing director of a company to reimburse that company for the payments made after it had become insolvent — Application of that legislation to a company established in another Member State — Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU — Restriction on the freedom of establishment — None)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/5

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Simona Kornhaas v Thomas Dithmar, acting as liquidator of the assets of Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd
   (Case C-594/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Article 4(1) - Determination of the applicable law - Legislation of a Member State laying down the obligation for a managing director of a company to reimburse that company for the payments made after it had become insolvent - Application of that legislation to a company established in another Member State - Articles 49 TFEU and 54 TFEU - Restriction on the freedom of establishment - None))
   (2016/C 048/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Simona Kornhaas

      Defendant: Thomas Dithmar, acting as liquidator of the assets of Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that Article 4 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that an action directed against the managing director of a company established under the law of England and Wales, forming the subject of insolvency proceedings opened in Germany, brought before a German court by the liquidator of that company and seeking, on the basis of a national provision such as the first sentence of Paragraph 64(2) of the Law on limited liability companies, reimbursement of payments made by that managing director before the opening of the insolvency proceedings but after the date on which the insolvency of that company was established, falls within its scope.

               2.

               Article 49 TFEU and Article 54 TFEU do not preclude the application of a national provision, such as the first sentence of Paragraph 64(2) of the Law on limited liability companies to a managing director of a company established under the law of England and Wales which is the subject of insolvency proceedings opened in Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015.


title: Case C-469/08: Action brought on 30 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               10.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/14

         Action brought on 30 October 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-469/08)
   (2009/C 6/23)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and V. Peere, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (1) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for the transposition of Directive 2005/36/EC expired on 20 October 2007. At the date of bringing this action, the Defendant had not yet taken all the measures necessary to transpose the Directive or, in any event, it had not informed the Commission of them.

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.


title: Case C-49/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon, Greece) — Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v Elliniko Dimosio (Articles 82 EC and 86 EC — Concept of undertaking — Non-profit-making association representing, in Greece, the International Motorcycling Federation — Concept of economic activity — Special legal right to give consent to applications for authorisation to organise motorcycling events — Exercise in parallel of activities such as the organisation of motorcycling events and the conclusion of sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts)

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 1 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Efetio Athinon, Greece) — Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE) v Elliniko Dimosio
   (Case C-49/07) (1)

   (Articles 82 EC and 86 EC - Concept of ‘undertaking’ - Non-profit-making association representing, in Greece, the International Motorcycling Federation - Concept of ‘economic activity’ - Special legal right to give consent to applications for authorisation to organise motorcycling events - Exercise in parallel of activities such as the organisation of motorcycling events and the conclusion of sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts)
   (2008/C 209/13)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Referring court
   Diikitiko Efetio Athinon, Greece
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Motosykletistiki Omospondia Ellados NPID (MOTOE)

      Defendant: Elliniko Dimosio
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Diikitiko Efetio Athinon — Interpretation of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC — Concept of ‘undertaking’ — Non-profit-making automobile association (ELPA) representing the Fédération internationale de motocyclisme (the International Motorcycling Federation) in Greece and having the exclusive right to authorise events in the field of motor sport — Association engaging, in parallel, in economic activities such as advertising, the conclusion of sponsorship agreements and the financing of prizes
   Operative part of the judgment
   A legal person whose activities consist not only in taking part in administrative decisions authorising the organisation of motorcycling events, but also in organising such events itself and in entering, in that connection, into sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts, falls within the scope of Articles 82 EC and 86 EC. Those articles preclude a national rule which confers on a legal person, which organises motorcycling competitions and enters, in that connection, into sponsorship, advertising and insurance contracts, the power to give consent to applications for authorisation to organise such competitions, without that power being made subject to restrictions, obligations and review.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case T-250/17: Action brought on 24 April 2017 — avanti v EUIPO (avanti)

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/43

         Action brought on 24 April 2017 — avanti v EUIPO (avanti)
   (Case T-250/17)
   (2017/C 195/58)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: avanti GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Bahmann, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

      Mark at issue: EU figurative mark featuring the word element ‘avanti’ — registration No 14 646 038

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 14 February 2017 in Case R 801/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               allow registration of the mark applied for on 6 October 2015 at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) under No 01464038 and publish the mark in order to progress the application procedure.

      Plea in law

               —

               infringement of Article 7 of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-605/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-120/14: PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council

text:
               30.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/34

         Appeal brought on 24 November 2016 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 15 September 2016 in Case T-120/14: PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council
   (Case C-605/16 P)
   (2017/C 030/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: H. Marcos Fraile, Agent, N. Tuominen, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: PT Ciliandra Perkasa, European Commission, European Biodiesel Board (EBB)

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016, notified to the Council on 16 September 2016, in Case T-120/14, PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council of the European Union;

               —

               reject the application at first instance for the annulment of the Contested Regulation; and

               —

               order the Applicant to pay the Council's respective costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Alternatively,

               —

               refer the cases back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               reserve costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

                  First, the General Court applied the wrong legal test when assessing whether the Council had evidence to decide that domestic raw materials prices contained in the records of the relevant Indonesian exporters were sufficiently distorted to justify disregarding them and having recourse to the methodology provided by Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation (1), second paragraph. In doing so, the General Court has imposed too high a burden of proof on the Institution.

               2.

                  Second, the General Court’s finding that the evidence adduced by the Institutions was not sufficient to show that there was an appreciable distortion of the prices of the main raw materials in Indonesia as a result of the DET system lacks proper reasoning.

               3.

                  Third, the operative part of the Contested Judgment annulling the anti-dumping duties in so far as they concern the Applicant is disproportionate to the only ground for annulment admitted by the General Court and gives undue effects to the finding of illegality.

               4.

               The Council will demonstrate that the Contested Judgment is vitiated by several errors of law affecting its validity. In addition, the Council submits that the facts underlying the Applicant’s third plea are sufficiently established so that the Court of Justice can decide on this plea and dismiss the application.

               5.

               The Council therefore respectfully requests that the Contested Judgment should be set aside and the application for annulment of the Contested Regulation by the Applicant at first instance, dismissed.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009, L 343, p. 51) (‘Basic Regulation’).


title: Case T-174/15: Action brought on 08 April 2015— EFB/Commission

text:
               22.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/35

         Action brought on 08 April 2015— EFB/Commission
   (Case T-174/15)
   (2015/C 205/47)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB) (Liège, Belgium) (represented by: M. Troncoso Ferrer and S. Moya Izquierdo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare the action admissible and well-founded;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant 36  457,79 EUR;

               —

               condemn the European Commission to pay all the legal costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Under its claim, the applicant requests the General Court to declare that the European Commission has breached its contractual obligations under the Contract of 24 January 2007 on the project for European Federation of Biotechnology Latin American Action on Functional Foods, with reference CT-2006-043158 (‘the Contract’), and claims for payment of the final amount of 36  457,79 EUR.
   In support of the action, the applicant relies on six pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging manifest errors of assessment concerning several eligible costs which constitutes an error in the appreciation of proof contrary to Article 1315 of the Belgian Civil Code.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of Articles II.20 and II.6 of the General Conditions of the Contract.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging an infringement of Article 1134 of the Belgian Civil Code and the principle of execution of contract in good faith.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a lack of motivation from the European Commission in the refusal to reimburse some costs.

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging an infringement of the protection of legitimate expectations.

               6.

               Sixth plea in law, alleging a lack of clarity in the rules applicable to the 6th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (‘FP6’).


title: Case C-47/08: Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               24.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 128/18

         Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-47/08)
   (2008/C 128/30)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-P. Keppenne and H. Støvlbæk, agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by laying down a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary and by failing to transpose Council Directive 89/48/EEC (1) in respect of the occupation of notary, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 43 and 45 EC, and Directive 89/48/EEC on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By its action, the Commission first of all alleges that the defendant, by laying down a nationality requirement for access to the profession of notary and its practice, disproportionately restricts freedom of establishment as laid down in Article 43 EC. Admittedly, Article 45 EC exempts from the application of the chapter relating to the right of establishment activities connected directly and specifically with the exercise of public authority. According to the Commission, the tasks entrusted to notaries under Belgian law are so distantly connected to the exercise of public authority that they do not fall within the scope of that article or warrant such a restriction of the freedom of establishment. Those tasks, in fact, do not confer on notaries a power of coercion and less restrictive measures than a nationality requirement could be laid down by the national legislature, such as subjecting the operators concerned to strict conditions for access to the profession, specific professional duties and/or a specific test.
   By its second complaint, the Commission further alleges that the defendant failed to fulfil its obligations by failing to transpose Directive 89/48/EEC in respect of the profession of notary. As it is a regulated profession, the directive is fully applicable to that profession and the high level of qualification required of notaries could easily be guaranteed by an aptitude test or an adaptation period.

      (1)  Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16).


C 19/44                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                  25.1.2003
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-160/01 and                     Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                           T-264/01 ( 1)                                   T-331/01: Huntstown Air Park Limited and Omega Aviation
                                                                           Services Limited v Commission of the European Communities.
                         (2003/C 19/81)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.
                    (Language of the case: French)
By order of 5 November 2002 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Joined
Cases T-160/01 and T-264/01: Léon Rappe v Commission of                            Removal from the register of Case T-172/02 (1)
the European Communities.
                                                                                (2003/C 19/84)
( 1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001 and C 369 of 22.12.2001.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           By order of 4 November 2002 the President of the Fourth
        Removal from the register of Case T-294/01 (1)                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                         (2003/C 19/82)                                    T-172/02: Laurent Druet v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 180 of 27.7.2002.
By order of 24 October 2002 the President of the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-294/01: Lucía Aparicio Chofré v Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-199/02 (1)
( 1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002.
                                                                                (2003/C 19/85)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
        Removal from the register of Case T-331/01 (1)
                                                                           By order of 22 October 2002 the President of the Fourth
                         (2003/C 19/83)                                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                   (Language of the case: English)                         T-199/02: Michel van Beek v Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities.
By order of 14 November 2002 the President of the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                     (1 ) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.


title: Case T-66/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Gogos v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Internal competition for change of category — Appointment — Classification in grade — Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/23

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 October 2008 — Gogos v Commission
   (Case T-66/04) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Internal competition for change of category - Appointment - Classification in grade - Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)
   (2008/C 313/40)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Christos Gogos (Waterloo, Belgium) (represented by: C. Tagaras initially, then N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, and P. Anestis, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the Commission's decision classifying the applicant in Grade A7, step 3, and the decision of 24 November 2003, rejecting the administrative complaint.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 94, 17.4.2004.


title: Case F-49/09: Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Wendler v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               18.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 167/27

         Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Wendler v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case F-49/09)
   2009/C 167/54
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Eberhard Wendler (Laveno Mombello, Italy) (represented by: M. Müller-Trawinski, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the defendant’s demand on the applicant to designate a bank account at his place of residence in Italy for his pension payments.

      Forms of orders sought

   The applicant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the defendant of 9 September 2008, in the form of the dismissal of the applicant’s appeal of 19 February 2008, according to which he is obliged to designate a bank account at his place of residence for his pension payments;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.


title: Case C-110/13: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — HaTeFo GmbH v Finanzamt Haldensleben (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Company law — Recommendation 2003/361/EC — Definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises — Types of enterprises taken into consideration in calculating staff numbers and financial amounts — Linked enterprises — Notion of ‘group of natural persons acting jointly’ )

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/15

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof — Germany) — HaTeFo GmbH v Finanzamt Haldensleben
   (Case C-110/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Recommendation 2003/361/EC - Definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises - Types of enterprises taken into consideration in calculating staff numbers and financial amounts - Linked enterprises - Notion of ‘group of natural persons acting jointly’))
   2014/C 112/17
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesfinanzhof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: HaTeFo GmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt Haldensleben

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof — Interpretation of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Annex to the Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ 2003 L 124, p. 36) — Types of enterprises taken into consideration in calculating staff numbers and financial amounts — Linked enterprises — Notion of group of natural persons acting jointly.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of the Annex to Commission Recommendation 2003/361/EC of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises must be interpreted as meaning that enterprises may be regarded as ‘linked’ for the purposes of that article where it is clear from the analysis of the legal and economic relations between them that, through a natural person or a group of natural persons acting jointly, they constitute a single economic unit, even though they do not formally have any of the relationships referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that annex.
   Natural persons who work together in order to exercise an influence over the commercial decisions of the enterprises concerned which precludes those enterprises from being regarded as economically independent from each other are to be regarded as acting jointly for the purposes of the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) of that annex. Whether that condition is satisfied depends on the circumstances of the case and is not necessarily conditional on the existence of contractual relations between those persons or a finding that they intended to circumvent the definition of a micro, small or medium-sized enterprise within the meaning of that recommendation.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case C-384/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Københavns Byret by order of that Court of 14 August 2002 in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Knud Grøngaard and Allan Bang

text:
C 7/12                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   11.1.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Vestre Landsret                  (Copenhagen District Court) of 14 August 2002, received at
by order of that Court of 9 October 2002 in the case of                    the Court Registry on 25 October 2002, for a preliminary
            Cimber Air A/S against Skatteministeriet                       ruling in the case of Anklagemyndigheden against Knud
                                                                           Grøngaard and Allan Bang on the following questions:
                          (Case C-382/02)
                            (2003/C 7/20)                                  Question 1
                                                                           Does Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 (1) preclude a person
                                                                           from disclosing inside information in the case where that
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     person received the inside information in his capacity as an
European Communities by order of the Vestre Landsret                       employee-elected member of the board of the undertaking to
(Western Regional Court) of 9 October 2002, received at the                which the inside information relates and that information is
Court Registry on 23 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling                disclosed to the general secretary of the trade union which
in the case of Cimber Air A/S against Skatteministeriet on the             organises the employees who elected the person concerned as
following questions:                                                       a board member?
1.     Are Article 15(7) and (9) (referring to Article 15(6)) of
       the Sixth VAT Directive (Council Directive 77/388/
       EEC (1), to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State           Question 2
       is entitled not to exempt from VAT supplies to aircraft
       operating on a domestic route, regardless of the fact that
       the company using the aircraft operates chiefly on                  Does Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 preclude a person from
       international routes, or is the Member State bound to               disclosing inside information in the case where that person
       exempt such supplies from VAT?                                      received the inside information in his capacity as a member
                                                                           of the undertaking’s corporate liaison committee and that
                                                                           information is disclosed to the general secretary of the trade
2.     If the Court finds that supplies must be exempted from              union which appointed the person concerned to be a member
       VAT if the airline operates chiefly on international routes,        of the corporate liaison committee?
       the Court is asked to state which criteria in the form of, for
       example, turnover, available seat kilometres, passenger
       kilometres or number of passengers and flights, are
       decisive under Article 15(6) for determining whether an             Question 3
       airline can be said to be operating ‘chiefly’ on international
       routes?
                                                                           Does Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 preclude the general
                                                                           secretary of a trade union from disclosing inside information
                                                                           in the case where that general secretary received the inside
( 1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
     harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                           information under the circumstances outlined in Question 1
     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform            and the information is passed on to:
     basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1).
                                                                           (a)   the general secretary’s two deputies;
                                                                           (b)   the senior administrative manager of the union’s sec-
                                                                                retariat; and
                                                                           (c)   colleagues of the general secretary within the union’s
                                                                                secretariat?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Københavns
Byret by order of that Court of 14 August 2002 in the
case of Anklagemyndigheden against Knud Grøngaard                          Question 4
                           and Allan Bang
                                                                           Does Article 3(a) of Directive 89/592 preclude the general
                          (Case C-384/02)                                  secretary of a trade union from disclosing inside information
                                                                           in the case where that general secretary received the inside
                                                                           information under the circumstances outlined in Question 2
                            (2003/C 7/21)                                  and the information is passed on to:
                                                                           (a)   the general secretary’s two deputies;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     (b)   the senior administrative manager of the union’s sec-
European Communities by order of the Københavns Byret                            retariat; and
 ---pagebreak--- 11.1.2003               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 7/13
(c)    colleagues of the general secretary within the union’s            3.    were outside the territory of the Republic of Austria as a
       secretariat?                                                            result of political persecution or the threat of political
                                                                               persecution and were taken into custody for political or
                                                                               military reasons by a foreign power and detained after
                                                                               the start of the Second World War,
Question 5
                                                                         is to be conditional on such persons holding Austrian national-
What bearing on the answers to Questions 1 to 4 has the fact             ity at the time of application?
that the inside information which is disclosed is
(a)    information on the commencement of merger nego-
       tiations between two companies quoted on the stock
       exchange;
(b)    information on the date of merger of two companies
       quoted on the stock exchange; or                                  Action brought on 4 November 2002 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
(c)    information on the level of the rise in the value of shares
       in a company quoted on the stock exchange which is                                           (Case C-388/02)
       anticipated by reason of the fact that the company is to
       merge with another quoted company?
                                                                                (2003/C 7/23)
( 1) Council Directive 89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 coordinat-
     ing regulations on insider dealing (OJ L 334 of 18.11.1989,
     p. 30).                                                             An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 4 November 2002
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by Maria Patakia and Karen Banks, acting as agents, with an
                                                                         address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arbeits- und                   The Applicant claims that the Court should:
Sozialgerichts Wien by decision of that Court of 22 Octo-
ber 2002 in the proceedings between Josef Baldinger and                  1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
           Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter                           and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                               Directive 1999/42/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                               the Council of 7 June 1999 on the establishment of a
                          (Case C-386/02)
                                                                               mechanism for the recognition of qualifications in respect
                                                                               of the professional activities covered by the Directives on
                           (2003/C 7/22)                                       liberalisation and transitional measures and sup-
                                                                               plementing the general systems for the recognition of
                                                                               qualifications ( 1), or in any event by failing to communi-
                                                                               cate them to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         its obligations under the Directive;
European Communities by decision of the Arbeits- und
Sozialgerichts Wien (Labour and Social Court Vienna) of
                                                                         2.    order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.
22 October 2002, received at the Court Registry on 28 October
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Josef Baldinger and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter
(Pension Insurance Scheme for Workers) on the following
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
questions:
Is Article 48(2) of the EC Treaty, on the free movement of               Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding as to
workers, to be interpreted as precluding a national rule which           the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by
provides that entitlement to financial compensation first                implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
legislated for in the year 2000 for persons who                          period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
                                                                         expired on 31 July 2001 without Ireland having enacted the
1.     became prisoners of war in the course of the First or             provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred to
       Second World War; or                                              in the conclusions of the Commission.
2.     were taken into custody and detained by a foreign power
       for political or military reasons in the course of the            (1 ) OJ L 201, 31.07.1999, p. 77.
       Second World War or during the period when Austria
       was occupied by the allied forces; or


title: Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Michel Hautem against the European Investment Bank (Case T-140/97)

text:
C 318/ 16               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  18 . 10 . 97
Instance of 19 June 1996 in Case T-573/93 Caballero                              — the sum of Bfrs 34 654 629 subject to increase
Montoya v. Commission [ 1996] ECR-SC 11-909 — the                                   or adjustment in the course of the proceedings,
Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
of C. W. Bellamy, President, A. Kalogeropoulos and                               — the sum of Bfrs 2 500 000 by way of
A. Potocki, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                            compensation for the loss of preferential rates
24 July 1997, the operative part of which is as follows:                            of interest on building loans,
1 . The application for interpretation is dismissed as                           — Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of compensation for the
     inadmissible.                                                                  injury to his professional reputation,
2 . Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.                       — order the EIB to pay the sum of Bfrs 300 000 to the
                                                                            applicant in his capacity as legal guardian of the
(') OJ C 27, 28 . 1 . 1994 .                                                person and property of his child who is a minor,
                                                                        — order the EIB to bear all costs .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Michel Hautem
            against the European Investment Bank
                          ( Case T-140/97)
                                                                        The EIB alleges in the contested decision that the
                             ( 97/C 318/33 )                            applicant, who has been employed as a messenger since
                                                                        16 December 1994, founded a company together with one
                                                                        of his colleagues from the EIB ( Mr Yasse (')); that,
                 (Language of the case: French)                         without informing the EIB, he engaged in commercial
                                                                        activities outside the EIB on behalf of that company and
                                                                        used EIB property; and that he failed to declare his wife's
An action against the European Investment Bank was                      professional involvement with the company. The applicant
 brought before the Court of First Instance of the European             was therefore dismissed in accordance with Article 39,
 Communities on 29 April 1997 by Michel Hautem,                         fourth paragraph, of the EIB Staff Regulations .
residing in Schouweiler ( Luxembourg ), represented by
 Pascale Delvaux de Fenffe and Pierre-Paul Van Gehuchten,
 of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                        The applicant alleges, first, infringement of Article 40 of
                                                                        the EIB Staff Regulations, of general principles common to
                                                                        the laws of the Member States and, in particular, of the
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                            right to a fair hearing.
— annul the decision taken on 31 January 1997 by the
     European Investment Bank ( EIB ),                                  The applicant's second plea is that the EIB committed an
                                                                        error of fact and of assessment inasmuch as the contested
                                                                        decision and the deliberations preceding it assume the
 — as a consequence, order the applicant to be reinstated               truth of the facts contested or place a manifestly erroneous
     in his duties,                                                     construction on the facts, inconsistent with their
                                                                        substance .
 — order the EIB to pay the applicant:
                                                                        The third plea alleges breach of the formal requirements,
     — upon his reinstatement, the sum of Bfrs 2 671 632                procedures and powers laid down by Article 40 of the
         — a provisional amount subject to increase in the              Staff Regulations in respect of the Joint Committee .
         course of the proceedings — representing salary
         arrears, together with Bfrs 1 000 000 by way of
         compensation for material and non-material                     Fourthly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of
         damage;                                                        proportionality and/or of the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations .
     — should his reinstatement prove impossible:
         — the sum of Bfrs 1 393 616 by way of ordinary                 Lastly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of
             compensatory settlement for lawful dismissal,              proportionality and of the general duty of impartiality,
 ---pagebreak--- 18 . 10 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/ 17
and a manifest error of assessment in that neither the Joint           and the acceptance of the A.TR.l movement certificate,
Committee nor the investigating authority sought to place              the Turkish customs authorities had charged no
the allegations in proper perspective by weighing them                 proportionate duty on components of third country origin,
against the applicant's service record, although the                   Member States were called upon by the Commission to
excellence of that record could and should have served as              effect post-clearance recovery of duties on colour
a mitigating factor, leading to greater clemency in the                television sets imported from Turkey. The applicant lodged
decision adopted.                                                      a complaint at the Hauptzollamt Krefeld against the
                                                                       revised assessment notice which followed, and claimed
                                                                       remission of the duties claimed retrospectively.
(') Case T- 14 1 /97 Bernard Yasse v. BEI.
                                                                       Intensive correspondence followed between the applicant
                                                                       and the Federal Ministry of Finance, the Federal Ministry
                                                                       of Finance and the Turkish Government, and with the
                                                                       Commission .
Action brought on 24 June 1997 by Kaufring AG against
        the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       In August 1996, the Federal Republic of Germany referred
                          ( Case T-186/97)                             to the Commission for a ruling pursuant to Article 13 of
                            ( 97/C 318/34 )                            Council Regulation ( EEC) No 1430/79 on the repayment
                                                                       or remission of import or export duties as to whether it
                                                                       was justified to remit the import duties in this case .
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                       The Commission thereupon issued the contested decision
An action against the Commission of the European                       of 19 February 1997, addressed to Germany, to the effect
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      that remission of import duties in the applicant's case was
Instance of the European Communities on 24 June 1997                   not justified .
by Kaufring AG, whose registered office is at Dusseldorf,
represented by Dietrich Ehle , Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                The applicant takes the view that the import duties
Marc Lucius, 6 rue Michel Welter, Luxembourg.                          imposed on the value of the finished colour television sets
                                                                       must be remitted . It alleges infringement of the duty to
                                                                       state reasons pursuant to Article 190 of the EC Treaty,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            and of its rights to be heard and put forward arguments in
                                                                       its defence at the time the contested decision was adopted.
— annul         Commission        Decision   REM      15/96    of
     19 February 1997, refusing the remission of a payment             The applicant further argues that the Commission based
     of DM 545 727,35,                                                 its decision only on Article 13 of Regulation ( EEC )
                                                                       No 1430/79 , and in applying that provision committed
                                                                       obvious legal and factual errors, especially a clearly
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                              erroneous determination and assessment of the facts . In
                                                                       particular, the Commission was clearly wrong to
                                                                       determinate that the completed A.TR.l movement
                                                                       certificates    did not constitute  a  fact on which the
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       applicant was entitled to rely by way of 'special
                                                                       circumstances'. Neither the Turkish exporters nor the
                                                                       applicant as importer could be accused of 'obvious
 During the period from September to December 1992, the                negligence' or any other fault.
 applicant imported a number of consignments of colour
 television sets from Turkey, which were produced there
 using parts which came partly from third countries
 (particularly Korea and Japan). The applicant had bought              Finally, the applicant argues that the Commission was
 the sets before importation from Crown Europe GmbH in                 manifestly in error, when applying Article 13 of
 Gelsenkirchen .      On    the   basis  of A.TR.l     movement         Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79, in failing to apply also the
 certificates which were produced and found by the Haupt              principles of proportionality, equal treatment and
 zollamt Krefeld to be in order, no duties were levied on               reasonableness . The applicant as importer has, it
 the applicant's importation of the sets.                               maintains, been retrospectively burdened with duties the
                                                                        non-levying of which fell clearly outside the area of risks
                                                                        it can be expected to bear.
 After the Commission carried out an investigation in 1993
 of various colour television manufacturers in Turkey, and
 established that, on the exportation of the television sets


title: Case C-267/08: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt (Austria)) — SPÖ Landesorganisation Kärnten v Finanzamt Klagenfurt (VAT — Entitlement to deduct input tax — Concept of economic activities — Regional groups of a political party — Advertising activities benefiting the party’s local groups — Expenditure relating to those activities exceeding income)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt (Austria)) — SPÖ Landesorganisation Kärnten v Finanzamt Klagenfurt
   (Case C-267/08) (1)

   (VAT - Entitlement to deduct input tax - Concept of ‘economic activities’ - Regional groups of a political party - Advertising activities benefiting the party’s local groups - Expenditure relating to those activities exceeding income)
   2009/C 282/21
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: SPÖ Landesorganisation Kärnten

      Defendant: Finanzamt Klagenfurt

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Klagenfurt (Austria) — Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (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) — Concept of ‘economic activity’ — Organisation by the provincial organisation of a political party of promotional activities for the benefit of the district organisations of that party, taking the form of events, the production and delivery of publicity material and the organisation of an annual ball — Expenses related to these activities considerably exceeding the revenue derived from passing on the expense of some of those activities to the district organisations and from the sale of the tickets for the ball

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(1) and (2) of the 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that, external advertising activities carried out by a section of a Member State’s political party is not to be regarded as an economic activity.

      (1)  OJ C 247, 27.9.2008.


title: Case C-471/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2013 — Peter Link v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/45

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 2 September 2013 — Peter Link v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-471/13)
   2013/C 344/78
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Peter Link

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is there also a right to compensation analogous to Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 (1) where the arrival of the flight originally booked by the passengers is delayed by more than three hours, the passengers however in the meantime –after a long flight departure delay had already occurred — voluntarily, autonomously and on their own account arranged replacement transportation with another airline company and therefore do not travel on the originally booked flight, the passengers arriving at the destination airport, on the replacement transportation, at a time which is more than three hours after the scheduled arrival time of the flight originally booked?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative: is it decisive for the creation of a right analogous to Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 that the voluntary and autonomous choice of replacement transportation with another airline company is made at a time when the delay in any event is already five hours pursuant to Article 6(1)(c)(iii) and Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004?

      (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 — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).


title: Case T-66/15: Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Alsharghawi v Council

text:
               4.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 146/39

         Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Alsharghawi v Council
   (Case T-66/15)
   (2015/C 146/53)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Bashir Saleh Bashir Alsharghawi (Johannesburg, South Africa) (represented by: É. Moutet, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Declare that the Council has failed to comply with its obligations under the FEU Treaty by not reviewing his situation;

               —

               Order the Council to review his situation;

               —

               Order the Council to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of his action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law alleging that by not acting on his application for review, the Council failed to comply with its obligations according to the legislation and case-law of the European Union.


title: Case T-164/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — ColArt/Americas/OHIM (BASICS) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark BASICS — Absolute grounds for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Descriptive mark — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Distinctive character acquired through use — Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/33

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — ColArt/Americas/OHIM (BASICS)
   (Case T-164/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark BASICS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Descriptive mark - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Distinctive character acquired through use - Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2007/C 247/53)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant: ColArt/Americas, Inc (Piscataway, New Jersey, United States) (represented by: E. Soler Borda and R. Zeineh, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 April 2006 (Case R 788/2005-4) refusing to register the word mark BASICS as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders ColArt/Americas, Inc. to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 190, 12.8.2006.


title: Case T-302/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 — PTV v OHIM (map&guide) (Community trade mark — Application for the Community word mark map&guide — Absolute grounds for refusal — Descriptive character — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/11

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 10 October 2006 — PTV v OHIM (map&guide)
   (Case T-302/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark map&guide - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 310/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG (Karlsruhe, Germany) (represented by: F. Nielsen, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Müller and G. Schneider, Agents)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 July 2003 (Case R 1046/2001-2), concerning an application for registration of the word mark map&guide as a Community trade mark.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.


title: Case F-86/06: Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Vereecken v Commission

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/19

         Action brought on 28 July 2006 — Vereecken v Commission
   (Case F-86/06)
   (2006/C 237/33)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Marc Vereecken (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Jaume and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   Principally:

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority refusing the applicant's objection, taken together with the refusal of the Appointing Authority to put the applicant on the list of officials promoted to grade A*9 in the 2005 promotion exercise, that refusal resulting implicitly from Administrative Notice No 85/2005 of 23 November 2005, as well as with the applicant's career progress reports for the years 2003 and 2005;

               —

               indicate to the Appointing Authority the effects of the annulment of the contested decisions, in particular, the reclassification of the applicant at grade A*9 with retrospective effect from 1 March 2005.

         In the alternative:

               —

               require the defendant to recognise that the applicant is eligible for promotion to grade A*9 at the time of his next promotion;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage suffered by the applicant as a result of not being promoted to grade A*9 as from 1 March 2005;

               —

               order the defendant to pay compensation for non-material damage suffered by the applicant because no staff reports for 1997-1999 were drawn up and the 1999-2001 staff report and the career progress reports for 2003 and 2004 were drawn up late.

         In any event:

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his action, the applicant submits three pleas, very similar to the first, third and fourth pleas relied on in application F-17/06 (1), brought by the same applicant.

      (1)  OJ C 96 of 22.04.2006, p. 39.