title: Action brought on 19 November 1998 by Dorothy Bell and Others against the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union (Case T-184/98)

text:
23.1.1999             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 20/31
    assessing whether the aid measures referred in the              Ð order the Commission and Council to pay the
    complaint were compatible with the common market.                    applicants:
    It therefore follows that the Commission was required
    to initiate a procedure under Article 93(2) and that the
    decision not to do it was unlawful.                                  (a) the individual sums set out in the schedule
                                                                              attached to the application at Annex 7, modified
                                                                              to the date of judgment; and, in the event that no
                                                                              order is made in respect of the applicants'
2. The contested decision of the Commission infringes                         liability for UK taxation on such sums;
    Article 190 of the EC Treaty in so far as it does not
    provide the applicant with an adequate explanation of
    the reasons which led the Commission to alter its                    (b) such further sum as may represent:
    original position.
                                                                              (i)   the sum payable by the applicants in respect
                                                                                of UK taxation, the quantification of such
                                                                                sums being adjourned pending negotiation
3. The Commission has infringed the principle of the
                                                                                between the parties and the UK tax
    protection of legitimate expectations.
                                                                                authorities; alternatively
                                                                              (ii) the actual liabilities for which the applicants
4. The Commission has infringed the principle of sound                              are liable to the UK tax authorities, the
    administration inasmuch as, in the present case, it has                         Council and Commission being liable to
    not dealt diligently with the applicant's complaint.                            indemnify the applicants in respect of any
                                                                                such contingent liability; and
                                                                    Ð order the Council and Commission to bear the costs of
                                                                         these proceedings.
Action brought on 19 November 1998 by Dorothy Bell
and Others against the Commission of the European                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  Communities and the Council of the European Union
                       (Case T-184/98)
                                                                    The applicants in the present case are all UKAEA (United
                        (1999/C 20/56)                              Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority) members of the JET
                                                                    Team Staff and they seek damages against the Commission
                                                                    and Council for failure to adopt measures to implement
                                                                    the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Joined
               (Language of the case: English)                      Cases T-177/94 Altmann and Others and T-377/94 Casson
                                                                    and Others, delivered on 12 December 1996 (1), despite
                                                                    being expressly requested to do so.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities and the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          Their submissions are in substance the same as those in
Communities on 19 November 1998 by Dorothy Bell and                 Case T-30/98 Altmann and Others (2), save as regards the
Others, represented by Mr Kenneth Parker QC and Mr                  dates from which the applicants maintain that their claim
Rhodri Thompson, Monckton Chambers, 4 Raymond                       for damages commences. Although there are technical
Buildings, Gray's Inn, London WC1R 5BP, United                      differences in the basis for their claims, in that the
Kingdom.                                                            judgment did not annul any decision relating to the
                                                                    applicants in the present case, the applicants maintain that
                                                                    the substance of their claim is identical to that of the
                                                                    claim of the applicants in Case T-30/98 and that the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                         Commission and Council were bound as a matter of
                                                                    Community law to remedy the legal wrong suffered by all
                                                                    the UKAEA members of the JET Team Staff and identified
                                                                    in the judgment or to pay compensation for their failure
Ð declare that the rejection of the applicants' complaint           to do so.
    whereby the Commission and Council failed to take
    any specific measures vis-aÁ-vis the applicants to
    implement the judgment of the Court in Joined Cases             (1) [1996] ECR II-2041.
    T-177/94 and T-377/94 Altmann and Others v.                     (2) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998, p. 11.
    Commission of 12 December 1996 is unlawful and a
    service-related fault for which the Commission and
    Council are liable;


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 December 2004 in Case C-19/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Viktor Hlozek v Roche Austria Gesellschaft mbH ((Social policy — Male and female workers — Equal pay — Pay — Concept — Bridging allowance (‘Überbrückungsgeld’) provided for by a works agreement — Social plan drawn up as part of an operation to restructure an undertaking — Benefit granted to workers having reached a certain age at the time of their dismissal — Benefit granted from a different age according to the sex of the dismissed workers — Account taken of national statutory retirement age, different according to sex))

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/1

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 9 December 2004
   in Case C-19/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof):
         Viktor Hlozek
       v
         Roche Austria Gesellschaft mbH

       (1)

   ((Social policy - Male and female workers - Equal pay - Pay - Concept - Bridging allowance (‘Überbrückungsgeld’) provided for by a works agreement - Social plan drawn up as part of an operation to restructure an undertaking - Benefit granted to workers having reached a certain age at the time of their dismissal - Benefit granted from a different age according to the sex of the dismissed workers - Account taken of national statutory retirement age, different according to sex))
   (2005/C 45/02)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-19/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), made by decision of 20 December 2001, received at the Court on 29 January 2002, in the proceedings between Viktor Hlozek and Roche Austria Gesellschaft mbH Ä the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts and S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 December 2004, in which it has ruled:
   A bridging allowance such as that at issue in the main proceedings falls under the concept of ‘pay’ within the meaning of Article 141 EC and Article 1 of Council Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, those provisions do not preclude the application of a social plan providing for a difference in the treatment of male and female workers in terms of the age at which they are entitled to a bridging allowance, since, under the national statutory scheme governing early retirement pensions, they are in different situations with regard to the factors relevant to the grant of that allowance.

      (1)  OJ C 109 of 04.05.2002.


title: Case C-30/09: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 96/82/EC — Article 11 — External emergency plans)

text:
               5.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/16

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-30/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/82/EC - Article 11 - External emergency plans)
   2009/C 297/19
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

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

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 11 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances (OJ 1997 L 10, p. 13), as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 345, p. 97) — Failure to draw up external emergency plans for certain establishments

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to ensure the implementation of the measures provided for under Article 11 of Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, as amended by Directive 2003/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2003, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article;

               2.

               orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 04.04.2009.


title: Case T-678/13: Action brought on 13 December 2013 — AENM v Parliament

text:
               22.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 85/20

         Action brought on 13 December 2013 — AENM v Parliament
   (Case T-678/13)
   2014/C 85/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Alliance of European National Movements (AENM) (Matzenheim, France) (represented by: J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Decision No 110655 of 14 October 2013, which fixed the definitive allowance granted by the European Parliament to the Alliance of European National Movements in respect of 2012 at EUR 186 292,12 and consequently decided that the Alliance of European National Movements should reimburse EUR 45 476,00, having regard to the fact that EUR 231 412,80 has already been allocated to the applicant association;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay all the costs and to pay on that basis a sum of EUR 20 000,00 to the Alliance of European National Movements.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a lack of competence on the part of the author of the act, since the signatory of that act did not have any authority to adopt, sign and notify the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of essential procedural requirements, since the Parliament did not give the applicant the opportunity to state its views on the discrepancies noted.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of the rule of law, in so far as:

                           —

                           contributions in kind are a lawful method of financing;

                           —

                           the applicant has been discriminated against in terms of its budget as against other European political parties;

                           —

                           the right of an individual to be heard prior to the enactment of a measure adversely affecting him has not been observed.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging misuse of powers, since the Parliament used financial constraints in order to restrict the means of action of a political party whose ideals are not shared by some of the Parliament’s members.


title: Case F-22/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2008 — Lafili v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Entry into force of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 723/2004 — Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations — Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Promotion — Grading — Multiplication factor)

text:
               6.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 313/56

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 4 September 2008 — Lafili v Commission
   (Case F-22/07) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Entry into force of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 723/2004 - Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations - Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Promotion - Grading - Multiplication factor)
   (2008/C 313/100)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Paul Lafili (Genk, Belgium) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, H. Kraemer and K. Herrmann, Agents)
   Re:
   Annulment of the decision to place the applicant in Grade AD 13, step 5, contained in a memorandum from DG ADMIN of 11 May 2006 and in the pay slip of June 2006 and in subsequent pay slips, inasmuch as that the decision infringes, inter alia, Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and Article 7 of Annex XIII to those regulations.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Head of Unit A 6 ‘Career structure, evaluation and promotion’ in the ‘Personnel and Administration’ General-Directorate of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 May 2006;

               2.

               Orders Mr Lafili to bear half his own costs;

               3.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and to pay half of Mr Lafili's costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007, p. 59.


title: Case C-191/09 P: Appeal brought on 29 May 2009 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 March 2009 in Case T-249/06: Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT), formerly Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT, Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT), formerly Nizhnedneprovsky Tube-Rolling Plant VAT v Council of the European Union

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/7

         Appeal brought on 29 May 2009 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) delivered on 10 March 2009 in Case T-249/06: Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT), formerly Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant ‘Niko Tube’ ZAT, Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT), formerly Nizhnedneprovsky Tube-Rolling Plant VAT v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-191/09 P)
   2009/C 193/07
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: J.-P. Hix, Agent, G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Interpipe Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant Niko Tube ZAT (Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT), anciennement Nikopolsky Seamless Tubes Plant ‘Niko Tube’ ZAT, Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant VAT (Interpipe NTRP VAT), anciennement Nizhnedneprovsky Tube-Rolling Plant VAT, Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claim that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 March 2009 in so far as the CFI (1) annulled Article 1 of the Contested Regulation in so far as the anti-dumping duty fixed for exports towards the European Community of the products manufactured by the Applicants exceeds that which would have been applicable had the export price not been adjusted for a commission when sales took place through the intermediary of the affiliated trader, Sepco SA (point 1 of the operative part of the Contested Judgment) and (2) ordered the Council to bear its own costs and one quarter of the costs incurred by the Applicants (point 3 of the operative part of the judgment under appeal),

               —

               give final judgment on the dispute by dismissing the Application in its entirety;

               —

               order that the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance be borne by the Applicants at first instance.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Council submits that the Court of First Instance:

               —

               erred in law when it applied the case-law on the single economic entity concept, by analogy, to the application of Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation (1) because it failed to recognize that the calculation of the normal value, the calculation of the export price, and the question whether adjustments apply, are governed by distinct rules. In this regard, the CFI also breached the obligation to state reasons;

               —

               erred in law when interpreting the burden of proof that the institutions must meet when making an adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the Basic Regulation by not applying the normal burden of proof in anti-dumping cases, and consequently, erred in law by not applying the correct standard of judicial review with respect to an economic assessment by the institutions;

               —

               erred in law by applying the wrong legal test when assessing the institutions' decision to make the Article 2(10)(i) adjustment because it assessed the decision based on the assumption that the single economic concept applies to the comparison of the normal value and the export price;

               —

               erred in law when it found that the institutions committed a manifest error of assessment in applying the first subparagraph of Article 2(10) of the Basic Regulation;

               —

               erred in law in applying too strict an interpretation of the disclosure requirements;

               —

               erred in law because it failed to apply correctly the legal test for a violation of the rights of defence which it had (correctly) identified;

               —

               erred in law in assessing the effect of the alleged procedural irregularity also because it relied on the legally erroneous findings as to the legality of the Article 2(10)(i) adjustment.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community OJ L 56, p. 1–20


title: Case C-371/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 12 September 2006 — Benetton Group SpA v G-Star International B.V.

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/23

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 12 September 2006 — Benetton Group SpA v G-Star International B.V.
   (Case C-371/06)
   (2006/C 294/41)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Benetton Group SpA

      Defendant: G-Star International B.V.
   Questions referred

               (1)

               Must Article 3(1)(e), first indent (1), be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition contained therein permanently precludes the registration of a shape as a trade mark where the nature of the product is such that its appearance and shaping determine its market value entirely or substantially as a result of their beauty or original character, or does the prohibition not apply where, prior to the application for registration, the attractiveness of the relevant shape to the public has been determined predominantly by the recognition of it as a distinctive sign?

               (2)

               If the answer to Question 1 is to the latter effect, to what extent must this attractiveness have prevailed for the prohibition no longer to apply?

      (1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1).


title: Case C-404/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2008 — Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale v District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg

text:
               20.12.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 327/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Naumburg (Germany) lodged on 18 September 2008 — Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt — Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale v District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg
   (Case C-404/08)
   (2008/C 327/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandesgericht Naumburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Investitionsbank Sachsen-Anhalt– Anstalt der Norddeutschen Landesbank — Girozentrale

      Defendant: District Auditor for the State Treasury of the Land Sachsen-Anhalt attached to the Landgericht Magdeburg
   Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 86(1) EC, in conjunction with Article 81(1)(a) and (d) and 81(2) EC, be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from court costs and fees granted by the Land of Saxony-Anhalt to the Investment Bank established by it under Paragraph 6(1) of the Investitionsbank-Begleitgesetz (Investment Bank Ancillary Law) of 18 December 2003 (Gesetz- und Verordungsblatt des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA) No 47/2003, p. 371) is invalid?

               2.

               If the question under 2.1 is answered in the negative: Should the Community-law rules on competition under the first sentence of Article 86(2) EC be interpreted as meaning that the Investment Bank, like the Land of Saxony-Anhalt, enjoys exemption from court costs and fees only when it performs official tasks within the meaning of Paragraph 6 of the Regulation of 30 December 2003 establishing the Investment Bank of Saxony-Anhalt (GVBl. LSA 2004, p. 20), as amended by amending regulation of 2 December 2006 (GVBl. LSA, p. 534)?


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 118/31
       Removal from the register of Case C-335/97 (1)                 from the register of Case C-125/00: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Portuguese Republic.
                       (2001/C 118/88)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
By order of 6 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-335/97: (reference for a preliminary
ruling from the Arbeidshof, Antwerp): Rijksdienst voor Pen-
sioenen v Wim Westenborg.
(1) OJ C 357 of 22.11.1997.                                                  Removal from the register of Case C-105/00 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/91)
                                                                      By order of 16 February 2001 the President of the Court of
                                                                      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
       Removal from the register of Case C-222/00 (1)                 from the register of Case C-105/00: Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities v Portuguese Republic .
                       (2001/C 118/89)
                                                                      (1) OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000.
By order of 6 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-222/00: Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.
(1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-225/99 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/92)
                                                                      By order of 8 March 2000 the President of the Court of Justice
       Removal from the register of Case C-125/00 (1)                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
                                                                      the register of Case C-225/99: (reference for a preliminary
                       (2001/C 118/90)                                ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep): Sociale Verzeke-
                                                                      ringsbank v Yamna Moughit.
By order of 14 February 2001 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.


title: Case C-90/08 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 March 2009 — K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Natália Cristina Lopes de Almeida Cunha, Cláudia Couto Simões, Marly Lima Jatobá (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the Community figurative mark CORPO LIVRE — Opposition on the part of the proprietor of the earlier national and international word marks LIVRE — Proof of use of the earlier marks submitted out of time — Rejection of the opposition)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/21

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 5 March 2009 — K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Natália Cristina Lopes de Almeida Cunha, Cláudia Couto Simões, Marly Lima Jatobá
   (Case C-90/08 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the Community figurative mark CORPO LIVRE - Opposition on the part of the proprietor of the earlier national and international word marks LIVRE - Proof of use of the earlier marks submitted out of time - Rejection of the opposition)
   2009/C 141/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG (represented by: D. Spohn, Rechtsanwältin)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent), Natália Cristina Lopes de Almeida Cunha, Cláudia Couto Simões, Marly Lima Jatobá

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 December 2007 in Case T-86/05 K & L Ruppert Stiftung v OHIM — Lopes de Almeida Cunha, Couto Simões, Lima Jatobá by which the Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the national and international word marks ‘LIVRE’ for goods in Class 25 against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 December 2004 dismissing the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by that proprietor against registration of the Community figurative mark ‘CORPO LIVRE’ in respect of goods in Classes 18 and 25 — Opposition proceedings — Rejection of the opposition on the basis that the proof of use of the earlier marks was submitted out of time

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders K & L Ruppert Stiftung & Co. Handels-KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 142, 07.06.2008.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Commerce, Brussels, by judgment of that court of 28 December 1998 in the case of Cidrerie Ruwet SA v Cidre Stassen SA and H. P. Bulmer Ltd, a company under English law (Case C-3/99)

text:
13.3.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/17
        12-month period apply irrespective of whether the               Annex III, taking account of the fact that this may,
        security provided by the manufacturer Ð possibly                and in this case does, give rise to differences between
        on account of a knowingly false undertaking by                  the various national laws, with the result that by this
        the party referred to in Question 1 Ð has been                  means the Member States which limit the range of
        released?                                                       containers, like Belgium which limits the range of
                                                                        containers for cider, have at their disposal a measure
                                                                        whose purpose or effect is to restrict the free
    (b) Is it still possible to require payment by the                  movement of goods?
        purchaser of 105 % of the highest production
        refund applicable to the product in question
        during the previous 12-month period if it can no
        longer be determined whether the purchaser gave            2. Having regard to the principle of the free movement
        an undertaking, but it is clear that processing into            of goods, does Directive 75/106/EEC allow Member
        a product other than one listed in Annex I has not              States to implement the directive in such a way that
        taken place or been proved on the part of either                the national legislation prohibits the marketing of
        the purchaser or a subsequent purchaser?                        containers of a quantity not listed in Annex III to the
                                                                        directive, in this case the 33 cl container for the
                                                                        marketing of cider?
3. If the answers to Question 2 are in the affirmative:
                                                                   (1) OJ L 42, 15.2.1975, p. 1.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 308, 4.12.1979, p. 25.
    As from what point in time is the previous 12-month
    period' in the second sentence of Article 7(5) of
    Regulation (EEC) No 2169/86 to be calculated?
(1) OJ L 189, 11.7.1986, p. 12.
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the French
                                                                   Conseil d'EÂtat by order of that court of 11 December
                                                                   1998 in the case of Association Greenpeace France,
                                                                   ConfeÂdeÂration Paysanne, Association Ecoropa France and
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de            EÂtienne Vernet, Association Les Amis de la Terre, Lucien
Commerce, Brussels, by judgment of that court of                   Cabanne, SteÂphan Carbonnaux and Guillaume Castaing v
28 December 1998 in the case of Cidrerie Ruwet SA v                French State, in the presence of Novartis Seeds SA and
                                                                                Monsanto Europe SA
Cidre Stassen SA and H. P. Bulmer Ltd, a company under
                          English law                                                       (Case C-6/99)
                        (Case C-3/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/30)
                       (1999/C 71/29)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the             European Communities by an order of the French Conseil
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de              d'EÂtat (Council of State) of 11 December 1998, which was
Commerce (Commercial Court), Brussels, of 28 December              received at the Court Registry on 13 January 1999, for a
1998, which was received at the Court Registry on                  preliminary ruling in the case of Association Greenpeace
7 January 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of            France, ConfeÂdeÂration Paysanne, Association Ecoropa
Cidrerie Ruwet SA v Cidre Stassen SA and H. P. Bulmer              France and EÂtienne Vernet, Association Les Amis de la
Ltd, a company under English law, on the following                 Terre, Lucien Cabanne, SteÂphan Carbonnaux and
questions:                                                         Guillaume Castaing v French State, in the presence of
                                                                   Novartis Seeds SA and Monsanto Europe SA, on the
                                                                   following questions:
1. Does Article 30 of the EC Treaty preclude Council
    Directive 75/106/EEC (1) of 19 December 1974 on the
    approximation of the laws of the Member States
    relating to the making-up by volume of certain                 (1) Must the provisions of Council Directive 90/220/EEC
    prepackaged liquids, as amended by Directive                        of 23 April 1990 (1) be interpreted as meaning that if,
    79/1005/EEC (2), which provides for a transitional                  after an application to place a genetically modified
    period, from allowing Member States, even today,                    organism on the market has been forwarded to the
    some twenty years later and even though during that                 Commission of the European Communities, no
    period of time habits have changed and the 33 cl                    Member State has raised an objection as provided for
    container has become popular and widely used all                    in Article 13(2) of Directive 90/220/EEC, or if the
    over the world, to authorise or not, as they wish, the              Commission of the European Communities has taken
    marketing of containers other than those listed in                  a favourable decision' pursuant to Article 13(4), the


title: Case T-33/12: Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2013 — Piotrowski v OHIM (MEDIGYM) (Community trade mark — International registration designating the European Community — Word mark MEDIGYM — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptiveness — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Right to a hearing — Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               6.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 101/17

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 February 2013 — Piotrowski v OHIM (MEDIGYM)
   (Case T-33/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Word mark MEDIGYM - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptiveness - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Right to a hearing - Second sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2013/C 101/37
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Elke Piotrowski (Viernheim, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M. Lenz and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2011 (Case R 734/2011-4) concerning an international registration designating the European Community of the word sign MEDIGYM.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Elke Piotrowski to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 17.3.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of 30 September 2003 in Case C-405/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo): Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española v Administración del Estado, intervener: Asociación de Navieros Españoles (ANAVE) (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39(4) EC — Employment in the public service — Masters and chief mates of merchant navy ships — Conferment of powers of public authority on board — Posts reserved for nationals of the flag State — Posts open to nationals of other Member States on condition of reciprocity)

text:
15.11.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 275/15
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                              profesiones marítimas of 30 December 1999, subject to a
                                                                                condition of reciprocity.
                        of 30 September 2003
                                                                               (1) OJ C 17 of 19.1.2002.
in Case C-405/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Supremo): Colegio de Oficiales de la Marina
Mercante Española v Administración del Estado, inter-
   vener: Asociación de Navieros Españoles (ANAVE) (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39(4) EC —
Employment in the public service — Masters and chief mates                                                (First Chamber)
of merchant navy ships — Conferment of powers of public
authority on board — Posts reserved for nationals of the flag
State — Posts open to nationals of other Member States on                                               of 2 October 2003
                       condition of reciprocity)
                                                                               in Case C-411/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                               the Tribunal d’instance de Metz): GEFCO SA v Receveur
                           (2003/C 275/24)                                                           principal des douanes (1)
                                                                               (Community Customs Code and implementing Regulation
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                               — Outward processing procedure — Exemption from the
                                                                               import duties applied to compensating products — Amount
                                                                               deductible in the event of an incorrect indication of a tariff
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         heading in the temporary export declaration for the goods —
                     in the European Court Reports)                            Failure having no significant effect on the correct operation
                                                                                of the outward processing procedure)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/25)
In Case C-405/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) for a preliminary ruling                                         (Language of the case: French)
in the proceedings pending before that court between Colegio
de Oficiales de la Marina Mercante Española and Administra-                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
ción del Estado, intervener: Asociación de Navieros Españoles                                      in the European Court Reports)
(ANAVE), on the interpretation of Article 39 EC and Articles 1
and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), the                 In Case C-411/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
Court, composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President,                        EC by the Tribunal d’instance de Metz (France) for a preliminary
J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and                   ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
C.W.A. Timmermans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,                        GEFCO SA and Receveur principal des douanes, on the
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken,                  interpretation of Articles 145 to 151 of Council Regulation
N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas,                   (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal               Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the Court
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                      (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
30 September 2003, in which it has ruled:                                      Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tiz-
                                                                               zano, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
                                                                               has given a judgment on 2 October 2003, in which it has
1.    Article 39(4) EC is to be construed as allowing a Member State           ruled:
      to reserve for its nationals the posts of master and chief mate of
      merchant ships flying its flag only if the rights under powers
      conferred by public law on masters and chief mates of such               1.    Articles 145 to 151 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/
      ships are actually exercised on a regular basis and do not                     92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
      represent a very minor part of their activities.                               Code must be interpreted as meaning that an economic operator
                                                                                who has declared goods under an incorrect tariff heading at the
                                                                                time of their temporary exportation from Community territory
2.    Article 39 EC is to be construed as precluding a Member State                  under the outward processing procedure is not prohibited, even
      making access by nationals of the other Member States to the                   in the absence of a formal amendment of the temporary export
      posts of master and chief mate of merchant ships flying its flag,              declaration, from adducing proof that the incorrect declaration
      such as those covered by Article 8(3) of Royal Decree No 2062/                 had no significant effect on the correct operation of the procedure
      1999 por el que se regula el nivel mínimo de formación en                      for the purposes of Article 150(2) of the Customs Code.


title: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 2002 in Case C-205/00: Irish Cement Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

text:
C 191/10                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          10.8.2002
1.    The second ground of appeal is dismissed in its entirety as in               —     the second, third and seventh heads of the fourth plea in
      part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.                     law,
2.    Costs are reserved.                                                          with the exception, as regards the fourteenth head of the third
                                                                                plea in law and the third head of the fourth plea in law, of the
                                                                                arguments based on the Court of First Instance’s assessment of
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.                                                         the overall responsibility of the undertakings involved in the
                                                                                single infringement;
                                                                             2.    Costs are reserved.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                      ORDER OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
                             of 5 June 2002
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-205/00: Irish Cement Ltd v Commission of the
                     European Communities (1)
                                                                                of 5 June 2002
(Appeal — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the
EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part                            in Case C-211/00 P: Ciments Français SA v Commission
 manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)                                   of the European Communities (1)
                                                                             (Appeals — Competition — Cement — Article 85(1) of the
                           (2002/C 191/16)
                                                                             EC Treaty (now, Article 81(1) EC) — Appeal in part
                                                                                manifestly unfounded)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/17)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Case C-205/00 P, Irish Cement Ltd, established in Dublin
(Ireland), represented by P. Sreenan, SC, instructed by J. Glack-
in, solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg: Appeal             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
against the judgment of the Fourth Chamber, Extended                                             in the European Court Reports)
Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-26/95, T-30/95 to
T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95,
T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95, T-88/95,                    In Case C-211/00 P: Ciments Français SA, established in Paris,
T-103/95 and T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v                           represented by A. Winckler, lawyers — appeal against the
Commission [2000] ECR II-491, seeking to have that judgment                  judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
set aside in part, the other party to the proceedings being:                 Communities, Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: R. Lyal),                     15 March 2000 in Joined Cases T-25/95, T-36/95, T-30/95 to
the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of                T-32/95, T-34/95 to T-39/95, T-42/95 to T-46/95, T-48/95,
the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola,                      T-50/95 to T-65/95, T-68/95 to T-71/95, T-87/95 to T-88/95
M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                    and T-103/95 to T-104/95 Cimenteries CBR and Others v
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                  Commission [2000] ECR II-491, seeking to have that judgment
5 June 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:                      partially set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Lyal,
                                                                             assisted by N. Coutrelis) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
1.    The following are rejected as manifestly inadmissible and              composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
      manifestly unfounded:                                                  (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and A. Rosas, Judges;
                                                                             D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
      —     the first to third, ninth to twelfth and fourteenth heads of     made an order on 5 June 2002, the operative part of which is
            the third plea in law,                                           as follows:


title: Case C-115/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 25 February 2016 — N Luxembourg 1 v Skatteministeriet

text:
               25.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 270/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 25 February 2016 — N Luxembourg 1 v Skatteministeriet
   (Case C-115/16)
   (2016/C 270/28)
   Language of the case: Danish

      Referring court

   Østre Landsret

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: N Luxembourg 1

      Defendant: Skatteministeriet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, (1) read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that a company resident in a Member State that is covered by Article 3 of the Directive and, in circumstances such as those of the present case, receives interest from a subsidiary in another Member State, is the ‘beneficial owner’ of that interest for the purposes of the Directive?

                           1.1.

                           Is the concept ‘beneficial owner’ in Article 1(1) of Directive 2003/49/EC, read in conjunction with Article 1(4) thereof, to be interpreted in accordance with the corresponding concept in Article 11 of the OECD 1977 Model Tax Convention?

                           1.2.

                           If question 1.1. is answered in the affirmative, should the concept then be interpreted solely in the light of the commentary on Article 11 of the 1977 Model Tax Convention (paragraph 8), or can subsequent commentaries be incorporated into the interpretation, including the additions made in 2003 regarding ‘conduit companies’ (paragraph 8.1, now paragraph 10.1), and the additions made in 2014 regarding ‘contractual or legal obligations’ (paragraph 10.2)?

                           1.3.

                           If the 2003 Commentaries can be incorporated into the interpretation, is it then a condition for deeming a company not to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of Directive 2003/49/EC that there actually has been a channelling of funds to those persons who are deemed by the State in which the interest payer is resident to be ‘the beneficial owners’ of the interest in question, and — if so — is it then a further condition that the actual passing take place at a point close in time to the payment of the interest and/or take place as a payment of interest?

                                       1.3.1.

                                       Of what significance is it in that connection if equity capital is used for the loan, if the interest in question is entered on the principal (‘rolled up’), if the interest recipient has subsequently made an intra-group transfer to its parent company resident in the same State with a view to adjusting earnings for tax purposes under the prevailing rules in the State in question, if the interest in question is subsequently converted into equity in the borrowing company, if the interest recipient has had a contractual or legal obligation to pass the interest to another person, and if most of the persons deemed by the State where the person paying the interest is resident to be the ‘beneficial owners’ of the interest are resident in other Member States or other States with which Denmark has entered into a double taxation convention, so that under the Danish taxation legislation there would not have been a basis for retaining tax at source had those persons been lenders and thereby received the interest directly?

                           1.4.

                           What significance does it have for the assessment of the issue whether the interest recipient must be deemed to be a ‘beneficial owner’ for the purposes of the Directive if the referring court, following an assessment of the facts of the case, concludes that the recipient — without having been contractually or legally bound to pass the interest received to another person — did not have the ‘full’ right to ‘use and enjoy’ the interest as referred to in the 2014 Commentaries on the 1977 Model Tax Convention?

               2.

               Does a Member State’s reliance on Article 5(1) of the Directive on the application of national provisions for the prevention of fraud or abuse, or of Article 5(2) of the Directive, presuppose that the Member State in question has adopted a specific domestic provision implementing Article 5 of the Directive, or that national law contains general provisions or principles on fraud, abuse and tax evasion that can be interpreted in accordance with Article 5?

                           2.1.

                           If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, can Paragraph 2(2)(d) of the Law on corporation tax, which provides that the limited tax liability on interest income does not include ‘interest which is tax-exempt … under Directive 2003/49/EC on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States’, then be deemed to be a specific domestic provision as referred to in Article 5 of the Directive?

               3.

               Is a provision in a double taxation convention entered into between two Member States and drafted in accordance with OECD’s Model Tax Convention, under which taxation of interest is contingent on whether the interest recipient is deemed to be the beneficial owner of the interest, a conventional anti-abuse provision covered by Article 5 of the Directive?

               4.

               Is it abuse, etc. under Directive 2003/49/EC if, in the Member State where the interest payer is resident, tax deductions are allowed for interest, whilst interest in the Member State where the interest recipient is resident is not taxed?

               5.

               Is a Member State that does not wish to recognise that a company in another Member State is the beneficial owner of interest and claims that the company in the other Member State is a so-called artificial conduit company, bound under Directive 2003/49/EC or Article 10 EC to state whom the Member State in that case deems to be the beneficial owner?

               6.

               If a company resident in a Member State (parent company) is in fact deemed not to be exempt from tax at source under Directive 2003/49/EC concerning interest received from a company resident in another Member State (subsidiary), and the parent company of the latter Member State is deemed to have limited tax liability on that interest in that Member State, does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 EC, preclude legislation under which the latter Member State requires the company liable for retaining the tax at source (subsidiary) to pay overdue interest in the event of overdue payment of the tax at source claim at a higher rate of interest than the overdue interest rate that the Member State charges on corporation tax claims (including interest income) lodged against a company resident in the same Member State?

               7.

               If a company resident in a Member State (parent company) is in fact deemed not to be exempt from tax at source under Directive 2003/49/EC concerning interest received from a company resident in another Member State (subsidiary), and the parent company of the latter Member State is deemed to be a taxable person with limited tax liability on that interest in that Member State, does Article 43 EC, read in conjunction with Article 48 (in the alternative Article 56 EC), viewed separately or as a whole, preclude legislation under which:

                           (a)

                           the latter Member State requires the person paying the interest to retain tax at source on the interest and makes that person liable to the authorities for the non-retained tax at source, where there is no such duty to retain tax at source when the interest recipient is resident in the latter Member State?

                           (b)

                           a parent company in the latter Member State would not have been required to make advance payments of corporation tax in the first two fiscal years, but would only have begun to pay corporation tax at a much later time than the due date for tax at source?

                     The EU Court of Justice is requested to include the answer to question 6 in its answer to question 7.

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States.

      OJ 2003 L 157, p. 49


title: Case T-614/13: Action brought on 26 November 2013 — Romonta v Commission

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/13

         Action brought on 26 November 2013 — Romonta v Commission
   (Case T-614/13)
   2014/C 31/24
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Romonta GmbH (Seegebiet Mansfelder Land, Germany) (represented by: I. Zenke, M. Vollmer, C. Telschow und A. Schulze, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (2013/448/EU, OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as Article 1(1) thereof rejects granting the applicant the supplementary quotas requested for the third trading period of the 2013 to 2020 emissions trading on the basis of the hardship clause under Paragraph 9(5) of the German Law on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      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 infringement of the principle of proportionality
               In the applicant’s view, the contested decision infringes the principle of proportionality, as the prohibition on the allocation of supplementary allowances on the basis of cases of hardship is incorrect in the light of the objective formulated by the defendant and in addition is completely disproportionate to the disadvantage faced by the applicant. In the alternative on this point the applicant claims that decision 2011/278/EU (1) is contrary to European law and is invalid.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of subsidiarity
               In the context of this plea in law, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the principle of subsidiarity, according to which the European Union’s action must be limited to what is necessary. Contrary to the Commission’s argument, the Member States retain a (albeit limited) right to adopt rules on the allocation of allowances. Those rules, the adoption of which remain within the competency of the Member States, include cases of hardship, such as those under Paragraph 9(5) of the German Law on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging infringement of fundamental rights
               Here, the applicant claims that the contested decision infringes its fundamental rights to freedom to conduct a business, freedom to choose an occupation and property, without those infringements being justified by one of the objectives of general interest or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others recognised by the European Union.

      (1)  2011/278/EU: Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional Union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2011) 2772) (OJ 2011 L 130, p. 1).


title: Case F-56/14: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Dominguez Perez v Commission (Civil service — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme — Transfer to the EU pension scheme — Proposal for the crediting of pensionable years, accepted by the person concerned, based on the new general implementing provisions — Act not having an adverse effect — Legal certainty — Legitimate expectations — Equal treatment — Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/34

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (2nd Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Dominguez Perez v Commission
   (Case F-56/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Pension rights acquired, prior to entering the service of the EU, under a national pension scheme - Transfer to the EU pension scheme - Proposal for the crediting of pensionable years, accepted by the person concerned, based on the new general implementing provisions - Act not having an adverse effect - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Equal treatment - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))
   (2016/C 326/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Dolores Dominguez Perez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Casado García-Hirschfeld, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, Agents, then G. Gattinara, Agent and, lastly, G. Gattinara and F. Simonetti, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of two calculation proposals relating to the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the EU pension scheme which apply the new GIP for Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

               2.

               Ms Dolores Dominguez Perez shall bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4/8/2014, p. 70.


title: Case T-310/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of  25 April 2006  — Kreuzer Medien v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Directive 2003/33/EC — Natural or legal persons — Standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               1.7.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 154/16

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 25 April 2006 — Kreuzer Medien v Parliament and Council
   (Case T-310/03) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Directive 2003/33/EC - Natural or legal persons - Standing to bring proceedings - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 154/43)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Kreuzer Medien GmbH (Leipzig, Germany) (represented: initially by U. Kornmeier and D. Valbert, and subsequently by M. Lenz, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: E. Waldherr and U. Rösslein, Agents) and Council of the European Union (represented by: E. Karlsson, Agent)

      Intervener in support of the applicant: Falstaff Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH (Klosterneuburg, Austria) (represented by: W.-G. Schärf, lawyer)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M.-J. Jonczy, L. Pignataro-Nolin and F. Hoffmeister, Agents), Kingdom of Spain (represented by: L. Fraguas Gadea, Agent) and Republic of Finland (A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for annulment of the wording of Article 3(1) of Directive 2003/33/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (OJ 2003 L 152, p. 16)
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Parliament and the Council.

               3.

               The Kingdom of Spain and the Commission shall bear their own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures before the Court of First Instance.

               4.

               The Republic of Finland shall bear its own costs.

               5.

               Falstaff Verlags-Gesellschaft mbH shall bear its own costs, including those relating to the application for interim measures before the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ C 289, 29.11.2003.


title: Case T-22/99: Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Gustave Rose against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 100/20             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       10.4.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  The applicant further submits that the Decision infringes
                                                                    procedural and substantive requirements, including the
                                                                    principle of equal treatment, which must be complied with
                                                                    when a fine is imposed under Regulation No 17.
A fine of ECU 1 475 000 was imposed on Dansk
Rùrindustri A/S (hereinafter Starpipe') by Article 3(c) of         (1) Commission Decision 99/60/EC relating to a proceeding under
the contested Commission Decision. The fine was imposed                 Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case No IV/35.691/E-4: Ð Pre-
primarily on the ground that Starpipe, together with a                  Insulated Pipe Cartel), (OJ L 24, 30.1.1999, p. 1).
number of other participants in the so-called pipe cartel',
participated in a complex of agreements and concerted
practices in the pre-insulated pipes sector which originated
in about November/December 1990 among the four
Danish producers, was subsequently extended to other
national markets and . . . by late 1994 consisted of a
comprehensive cartel covering the whole of the common
market', which, so far as Starpipe is concerned, is deemed
to have lasted until at least March or April 1996'.                Action brought on 21 January 1999 by Gustave Rose
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-22/99)
The applicant acknowledges that it infringed Article 85 of                                  (1999/C 100/39)
the Treaty in so far as the Decision states that the
producers divided national markets on the basis of quotas,
but not in so far as it states that the producers also
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
eventually divided up the European market among
themselves. The applicant further acknowledges the
infringement confirmed in the Decision in so far as it is
stated that the producers allocated national markets to
                                                                    An action against the Commission of European
particular producers and arranged the withdrawal of other
                                                                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
producers, agreed on prices, and ensured allocation of
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 21 January
individual projects to designated producers by
                                                                    1999 by Gustave Rose, residing at Goutroux (Belgium),
manipulating the bidding procedure for those projects.
                                                                    represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6
                                                                    Rue Heinrich Heine.
So far as the temporal and geographical scope of the
acknowledged infringement is concerned, the applicant
can admit only that it participated in the operation of the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
cartel relating to the Danish market during the period
from November/December 1990 to mid-1993, in limited
anti-competitive activities on the German market, and in            Ð annul the express decision made on 9 October 1998
one single instance on the Italian market, after which                   (and notified on 20 October 1998), rejecting the
Starpipe's involvement in the operation of the cartel                    complaint submitted by the applicant to the
ceased entirely for one year before subsequently resuming                appointing authority on 2 June 1998 by which he
in the late summer of 1994.                                              contested the decision not to promote him to grade C 1
                                                                         in the 1998 promotions procedure (decision published
                                                                         in Administrative Notices No 1036 of a 6 April 1998);
The applicant denies that it participated in concerted
measures to protect the cartel against competition from             Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
the only significant outside competitor, Powerpipe AB.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
In support of the forms of order which it seeks, the
applicant submits that the Decision is contrary to
Article 85 of the EC Treaty and to Articles 3 and 15 of
Council Regulation No 17 inasmuch as it contains a                  The applicant pleads, first, infringement of the rules
misapplication of the law and an inaccurate assessment of           contained in the Practical Guide to the Procedure for the
the evidence so far as the parts of the Decision referred to        Promotion of Officials of the Commission of the European
in the first and second forms of order sought are                   Communities', as well as breach of the principles of non-
concerned.                                                          discrimination (Article 5 of the Staff Regulations) and the
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 100/21
protection of legitimate expectations and of the duty to            The complaint relates to the following conduct:
have inasmuch as he was refused promotion in 1998
despite the fact that, by virtue of his name having already
been entered on the list of officials most deserving of             Ð concertation between PSA and its concessionaires at
promotion in 1997, his entitlement to promotion should                   national and local level with a view to impeding
have been given priority over that of other officials.                   parallel imports;
                                                                    Ð obstruction of supplies by the exertion of pressure of
He also pleads infringement of Article 45(1) of the Staff                foreign concessionaires to dissuade them from
Regulations, inasmuch as the appointing authority did not                supplying vehicles to end-users domiciled in France;
undertake, in a reasonable and duly justified way, an
examination of the comparative merits of the eligible
candidates.                                                         Ð use of the so-called model-year date' sales technique;
                                                                         and
                                                                    Ð the existence of measures accompanying so-called
                                                                         Balladur' State premiums.
                                                                    The applicant considers that the Commission failed, both
Action brought on 25 January 1999 by Garage Trabisco                in its summary of the complaint and in the presentation of
 SA against the Commission of the European Communities              its statement of reasons, with a view to justifying the lack
                                                                    of a sufficient Community interest, to demonstrate the
                       (Case T-26/99)                               partitioning of the markets and the obstruction of
                      (1999/C 100/40)                               supplies, such as the concerted efforts made to prevent
                                                                    access to the parallel imports market by the misuse of
                                                                    the national proedures. Consequently, the defendant
                                                                    institution has failed to fulfil its obligations relating to the
               (Language of the case: French)                       examination of complaints submitted in competition
                                                                    matters.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 25 January
1999 by Garage Trabisco SA, established at Cognac
(France), represented by Jean Claude Fourgoux, of the
Paris Bar,with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon.             Action brought on 25 January 1999 by Sigma Tecnologie
                                                                    di Rivestimento SRL against the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-28/99)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (1999/C 100/41)
Ð annul the decision of the Commission of 16/                                       (Language of the case: Italian)
    17 November 1998;
                                                                    An action against the Commission of the European
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                    Instance of the European Communities on 25 January
                                                                    1999 by Sigma Tecnologie di Rivestimento SRL, whose
                                                                    registered office is in Lonato (Italy), represented by
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support                  Aurelio Pappalardo, of the Trapani Bar, and Massimo
                                                                    Merola, of the Rome Bar, with an adress for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, Rue
                                                                    Albert 1er 51.
By its action, the applicant company contests the decision
of the Commission rejecting the complaint lodged by it
concerning the steps taken by the Peugeot Group (PSA)               The applicant claims that the Court should:
and certain of its concessionaires to impede its activities as
an independent agent/reseller, pursuant to an illegal
agreement between PSA and its concessionaires covering              Ð annul Article 1 of Commission Decision K(1998) 3117
the whole of the territory of France.                                    final of 21 October 1998 (Case IV/35.691/E-4


title: Case T-452/05: Action brought on  27 December 2005  — Belgian Sewing Thread v Commission

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/43

         Action brought on 27 December 2005 — Belgian Sewing Thread v Commission
   (Case T-452/05)
   (2006/C 60/83)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Belgian Sewing Thread N.V. (represented by: H. Gilliams, lawyer)

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

               (a)

               in the action for annulment:

                           —

                           annul Article 1 of the Decision insofar as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement established therein to the same extent as the other undertakings involved in the infringement, and Article 2 of the Decision insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicant;

                           —

                           in the alternative, annul or substantially reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 2 of the Decision;

                           —

                           order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings;

               (b)

               in the action for compensation:

                           —

                           find that the Commission is liable under Articles 235 and 288 EC;

                           —

                           order the Commission to pay all the damage suffered and yet to be suffered by the applicant as result of the Commission's publication of the applicant's internal price lists;

                           —

                           order the Commission to pay interest on the damages, at 8 % per annum with effect from the moment when the Commission was at fault;

                           —

                           order the Commission, pending the outcome of an expert's report, to pay in advance compensation of EUR 705 812;

                           —

                           order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   First of all, the applicant contests the Commission's decision of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case 38.337 — PO/Thread) insofar as it finds that the applicant participated in the infringement established there to the same extent as the other undertakings involved in the infringement, and seeks the annulment or at least a substantial reduction of the fine imposed on it.
   The applicant states that the infringement committed by it was wrongly classified as very serious. The Commission thereby infringed the principle of fairness and proportionality, Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003 (1), and also the obligation to state reasons and the rights of the defence. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to take into account the fact that the applicant had not played any role whatsoever in the conception and organisation of the infringement, did not participate in the meetings in question with a view to making agreements restrictive of competition, and the fact that the applicant never implemented the agreements.
   The applicant also challenges its placement in the second category for determination of the basic amount, and the size of the basic amount imposed. According to the applicant, the Commission overrated the possibility of the applicant having a real impact on competition, both in an absolute sense in comparison with the impact of the other undertakings involved but also in the light of the applicant's precarious financial situation and the limited size of the market. It also submits in that connection that the Commission infringed the principle of fairness and proportionality, Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003, the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and the obligation to state reasons.
   According to the applicant, the Commission also wrongly assessed attenuating circumstances in relation to the applicant and infringed the Guidelines on the method of setting fines and the obligation to state reasons. The Commission ought to have taken into account as attenuating circumstances the fact that the applicant did not implement the agreements made and that it had played a very limited and passive role.
   According to the applicant, a much too small a reduction in the fine imposed was granted to it on account of its cooperation with the investigation, in breach of the obligation to state reasons, the principle of equality and proportionality and the Leniency Notice.
   Finally, the applicant seeks compensation for the damage suffered by it as result of the Commission's infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the obligation of secrecy, by publishing the applicant's internal price lists.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1)


title: Case C-360/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg lodged on 5 September 2006 — Heinrich Bauer Verlag BeteiligungsGmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/1

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg lodged on 5 September 2006 — Heinrich Bauer Verlag BeteiligungsGmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg
   (Case C-360/06)
   (2006/C 310/02)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Heinrich Bauer Verlag BeteiligungsGmbH

      Defendant: Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in Hamburg
   Question referred
   Is it incompatible with Article 52 in conjunction with Article 58 of the EEC Treaty (now Article 43 in conjunction with Article 48 EC) that, when unlisted shares in a capital company are valued, a financial interest in a German partnership is given a lower value than a financial interest in a partnership established in another Member State?


title: Case F-34/16: Action brought on 7 July 2016 — ZZ v Parliament

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/35

         Action brought on 7 July 2016 — ZZ v Parliament
   (Case F-34/16)
   (2016/C 326/60)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions to recover the amounts which the applicant allegedly received unduly in respect of education allowance and dependent child allowance and the decisions ending her entitlement to certain allowances.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the new ‘received from other sources’ recovery decision;

               —

               Annul the ‘end of entitlement’ recovery decision, in so far as it sets the end of the applicant’s entitlement to the education allowance for XX and YY as 1 July 2015 instead of 1 October 2015 and in so far as it sets the end of her entitlement to the household allowance as 1 August 2015 instead of 1 October 2015;

               —

               Annul, if necessary, the decision rejecting the claim;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay late-payment interest to the applicant on the amounts irregularly withheld or recovered at the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, increased by two points, with effect, in respect of each amount, from the date on which it should have been paid to her;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-40/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom)) — Astra Zeneca UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 2(1) — Concept of the supply of services effected for consideration — Retail vouchers provided by an undertaking to its employees as part of their remuneration)

text:
               11.9.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 246/4

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 29 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United Kingdom)) — Astra Zeneca UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-40/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 2(1) - Concept of the supply of services effected for consideration - Retail vouchers provided by an undertaking to its employees as part of their remuneration)
   2010/C 246/06
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Astra Zeneca UK Ltd

      Defendant: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester — Interpretation of Articles 2(1), 6(2)(b) and 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) — Meaning of ‘a supply of services for consideration’ — Retail vouchers made available to an employee under his or her employment contract, part of their value being charged against that employee’s salary

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 2(1) 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995, must be interpreted as meaning that the provision of a retail voucher by a company, which acquired that voucher at a price including value added tax, to its employees in exchange for their giving up part of their cash remuneration constitutes a supply of services effected for consideration within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 18.4.2009.


title: Case C-393/08: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Emanuela Sbarigia v Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia, Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma (National legislation governing opening times and closing days of pharmacies — Exemption — Power of decision of the competent authorities)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 1 July 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio — Italy) — Emanuela Sbarigia v Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia, Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma
   (Case C-393/08) (1)

   (National legislation governing opening times and closing days of pharmacies - Exemption - Power of decision of the competent authorities)
   2010/C 234/08
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Emanuela Sbarigia

      Defendants: Azienda USL RM/A, Comune di Roma, Assiprofar — Associazione Sindacale Proprietari Farmacia, Ordine dei Farmacisti della Provincia di Roma

      Re:

   Reference for a Preliminary Ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio– Interpretation of Arts 49, 81 to 86, 152 and 153 EC — National legislation governing the opening hours and rota arrangements for pharmacies — Pharmacists forbidden to decline annual holiday closure or to remain open beyond the maximum limits set for opening hours

      Operative part of the judgment

   The reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Lazio, made by decision of 21 May 2008, is inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 285, 8.11.2008.


title: Case C-558/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) (United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd, Hercules Inc. v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 — Chemicals — Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) — Concept of monomer substances — Validity — Proportionality — Equal treatment)

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/6

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 July 2009 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division) (United Kingdom) — The Queen, on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd, Hercules Inc. v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-558/07) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 - Chemicals - Registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH) - Concept of ‘monomer substances’ - Validity - Proportionality - Equal treatment)
   2009/C 205/08
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice (Queen’s Bench Division)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: The Queen, on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Ltd, Hercules Inc.

      Defendants: Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division — Interpretation and validity of Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC — Concept of ‘monomer substances’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘monomer substances’ in Article 6(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC relates only to reacted monomers which are integrated in polymers;

               2.

               Examination of the second question has revealed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 6(3) of Regulation No 1907/2006.

      (1)  OJ C 51, 23.2.2008.


title: Case C-75/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Alessandria (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2009 — Agra Srl v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Alessandria

text:
               1.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Alessandria (Italy) lodged on 20 February 2009 — Agra Srl v Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Alessandria
   (Case C-75/09)
   2009/C 102/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Alessandria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Agra Srl

      Defendant: Agenzia Dogane Ufficio delle Dogane di Alessandria

      Question referred

   In the light of Article 11 of Legislative Decree No 374/[1990], read in conjunction with Article 221(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2913/1992 and Article 221(4) thereof, regard being had to Article 84(3) of the Consolidated laws on customs matters (Presidential Decree No 43/1973), is the right of the Customs Authority to revise the assessment [of the customs debt] time-barred, and/or has it lapsed, on the expiry of the three-year period from the date of the customs declaration, or can those time-limits be interrupted and/or suspended pending the outcome of criminal proceedings for infringement of the customs rules in relation to the assessment?