title: Action brought on 8 December 1997 by W. J. C. Hilsdon against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-304/97)

text:
28.3.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 94/25
Ð the public contract appears to have been awarded                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
    after 14 April 1997, the date on which the deadline
    for valid tenders expired, without the tenderers having
    been asked to confirm whether or not their price                 Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay
    remained the same, and                                               damages in accordance with Schedule 1 to the
                                                                         application,
Ð subject to an examination of the administrative file at
    a later stage, it must be considered to have been
    established that the successful tender is not in                 Ð order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the
    conformity with the whole of the obligations set out in              applicant's costs.
    the special contract documents, which necessarily
    vitiates the decision to accept that tender.                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     The applicant complains of the damaging consequences
                                                                     arising from the fact that, unlike the position with respect
                                                                     to SLOM I and II milk producers, he, as a SLOM III milk
Action brought on 5 December 1997 by SPRL Ecole de                   producer, has not been compensated for the absence of
Maîtrise Automobile against the Commission of the                    quota prior to the introduction of SLOM quota.
                   European Communities
                       (Case T-303/97)
                                                                     The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the
                         (98/C 94/64)                                applicant are similar to those raised in Cases T-195/94
                                                                     and T-202/94 Quiller and Heusmann v. Council and
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Commission (1) and T-10/96 Lay v. Council and
An action against the Commission of the European                     Commission (2).
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 December                   In relation to the five-year limitation period under
1997 by SPRL Ecole de Maîtrise Automobile, established               Article 43 of the Protocol on the (EC) Statute the Court of
in Luxembourg, represented by Luc Van Damme, of the                  Justice, the applicant contends that it only began to run
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at           from the date when that Court held that the non-
the Chambers of Farida Chorfi, 8 Rue des Girondins.                  allocation of quota to the SLOM III group was illegal.
                                                                     Alternatively, the failure to provide for a SLOM III quota
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     constituted a continuing breach up to the date of its
                                                                     introduction in 1993 and the Council and the Commission
Ð annul the Commission's decision of unknown date
                                                                     were therefore guilty of a continuing breach of the
    awarding the contract to train the Commission's
                                                                     applicant's legitimate expectations from the end of the
    drivers to the Jesco Auto Training School,
                                                                     non-marketing scheme until that date.
Ð annul the rejection implied thereby of the applicant's
    tender.                                                          (1) OJ C 188, 9.7.1994, p. 16, and
                                                                         OJ C 218, 6.8.1994, p. 22.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  (2) OJ C 133, 4.5.1996, p. 23.
The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
those relied upon in Case T-302/97.
                                                                     Action brought on 8 December 1997 by Jimmy Hull
                                                                     against the Council of the European Union and the
Action brought on 8 December 1997 by W. J. C. Hilsdon                         Commission of the European Communities
against the Council of the European Union and the                                           (Case T-305/97)
         Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-304/97)                                                        (98/C 94/66)
                         (98/C 94/65)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
               (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Council of the European Union and              An action against the Council of the European Union and
the Commission of the European Communities was                       the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 8 December 1997 by W. J. C. Hilsdon,                  Communities on 8 December 1997 by Jimmy Hull,
represented by Rory Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs                  represented by Rory Hutchings, Solicitor, of Messrs
Dawson & Co, of 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London                  Dawson & Co., of 2 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, London
WC2A 3RZ.                                                            WC2A 3RZ.


title: Case F-69/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 November 2012 — Dekker v Europol

text:
               9.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/33

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 8 November 2012 — Dekker v Europol
   (Case F-69/12) (1)

   2013/C 38/65
   Language of the case: Dutch
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 20.10.2012, p. 17.


title: Case T-345/00: Action brought on 13 November 2000 by Pharmacia & Upjohn S.A. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 45/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.2.2001
Action brought on 13 November 2000 by Pharmacia &                       Pleas in law and main arguments
Upjohn S.A. against the Commission of the European
                          Communities                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in
                                                                        Case T-344/00 (1) CECA v Commission.
                        (Case T-345/00)
                                                                        (1) See p. 19 of this Official Journal.
                         (2001/C 45/43)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                        Action brought on 14 November 2000 by A. Barth against
                                                                               the Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                         (Case T-348/00)
European Communities on 13 November 2000 by Pharmacia
& Upjohn S.A., represented by Denis Waelbroeck and Dirk                                             (2001/C 45/44)
Brinckman, of Liedekerke Siméon Wessing Houthoff, Brussels.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—    declare pursuant to Article 232 EC that the Commission             European Communities on 14 November 2000 by A. Barth,
     has failed to comply with its obligations under Com-               residing at Lenzkirch (Germany), represented by E.J.H. Moons,
     munity law by failing to take the necessary measures for           of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
     the inclusion of progesterone in Annex II to Regulation            at the Chambers of C. Turk, 13a Avenue Guillaume.
     No 2377/90 following the issuing of the positive opinion
     of the CVMP and in particular to draw up a draft                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
     regulation including progesterone in Annex II and sub-
     mitting it to the Standing Committee for approval;                 —     declare the application admissible and well founded;
                                                                        —     rule that there exists no basis on which recovery may be
—    order the Community, as represented here by the Com-                     sought from the applicant pursuant to Article 85 of the
     mission, to repair the damage suffered by the applicant                  Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communi-
     as a result of the Commission’s unlawful failure to act                  ties;
     and to set the amount of this compensation for the
     damage suffered so far at EURO 271,170, or any other               —     rule that special circumstances have existed as regards the
     amount reflecting the damage suffered by the applicant                   applicant since 24 September 1998 and that he therefore
     as further established by it in the course of these                      continues to be entitled to receive the household allow-
     proceedings, especially taking due account of future                     ance pursuant to Article 1(c) of Annex VII to the Staff
     damage;                                                                  Regulations;
                                                                        —     consequently, order the European Commission to:
—    in the alternative, order the parties to produce to the
     Court within a reasonable period from the date of the                    (1) repay the sum of EUR 2 543,20 which has been
     judgment figures as to the amount of the compensation                          deducted, together with interest from the dates on
     agreed between the parties or, in the absence of agree-                        which the deductions were respectively made;
     ment, order the parties to produce to the Court within
     the same period their submissions with detailed figures in               (2) repay the sum of DEM 1 053,18 which has been
     support;                                                                       deducted, likewise with interest from the dates on
                                                                                which the deductions were respectively made;
—    order that interest at the annual rate of 8 %, or any other              (3) continue to pay the household allowance to the
     appropriate rate to be determined by the Court, shall be                       applicant with effect from March 2000, together
     paid on the amount payable as from the date of the                             with compensatory interest from the payment dates
     Court’s judgment until actual payment of that amount;                          which have passed since then;
                                                                        —     order the Commission to pay statutory interest on all the
—    order the Commission to pay the costs of the present                     sums in question and to pay the costs, including the
     proceedings.                                                             procedural costs.


title: Case C-349/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 13 June 2017 — Eesti Pagar AS v Ettevõtluse Arendamise Sihtasutus, Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium

text:
               14.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Ringkonnakohus (Estonia) lodged on 13 June 2017 — Eesti Pagar AS v Ettevõtluse Arendamise Sihtasutus, Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium
   (Case C-349/17)
   (2017/C 269/17)
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tallinna Ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Eesti Pagar AS

      Respondents: Ettevõtluse Arendamise Sihtasutus, Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium

      Questions referred

               (a)

               Is Article 8(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 (1) declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General Block Exemption Regulation) to be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of that provision, where the activity to be supported is, for example, the acquisition of an industrial plant, ‘work on the project or activity’ has started when the agreement for the purchase of the relevant plant has been entered into? Are the Member State authorities authorised to assess an infringement of the criterion mentioned in that provision in light of the costs of withdrawal from an agreement which contravenes the requirement of an incentive effect? If the Member State authorities have such authority, what level of costs (in percentage terms) incurred by withdrawal from the agreement may be deemed to be sufficiently marginal from the aspect of meeting the requirement of the incentive effect?

               (b)

               Is a Member State authority obliged to recover an unlawful aid granted by it even if the European Commission has not adopted a corresponding decision?

               (c)

               Can a Member State authority which decides to grant an aid — on the erroneous assumption that it is an aid that accords with the block exemption requirements, but which is in fact an unlawful aid — engender a legitimate expectation on the part of the aid recipients? Is, in particular, the fact that the Member State authority is aware, on granting the unlawful aid, of the circumstances causing the aid not to be covered by the block exemption sufficient to give rise to a legitimate expectation on the part of the recipients?
               If the preceding question is answered affirmatively, must the public interest and the interest of the individual be weighed against one another? In the context of that weighing-up of interests, is it significant whether, in relation to the aid at issue, the European Commission has adopted a decision declaring it incompatible with the common market?

               (d)

               Which limitation period applies to the recovery of an unlawful aid by a Member State authority? Is that period ten years, corresponding to the period after which, under Articles 1 and 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, the aid becomes existing aid and can no longer be recovered, or four years in accordance with Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (3) on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests?
               What is the legal basis for such recovery where the aid was granted from a structural fund: Article 108(3) TFEU or Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests?

               (e)

               If a Member State authority recovers an unlawful aid, is it then obliged to demand from the recipient the payment of interest on the unlawful aid? If so, which rules will then apply to the calculation of the interest, inter alia, as regards the rate of interest and the calculation period?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 214, p. 3.

      (2)  OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1, corrigendum OJ 1998 L 36, p. 16.


title: Case T-105/03: Action brought on 17 March 2003 by Triantafyllia Dionyssopoulou against the Council of the European Union

text:
10.5.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 112/47
concerning the withdrawal of the contribution of the European              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted, in the form of a
global subsidy in support of the activities of an ‘Information             —     annul Ms Dionyssopoulou’s definitive staff report dated
centre for collaboration between undertakings and the pro-                       20 December 2002;
motion of investment’, by Commission Decision C(93) 256/4
of 16 February 1993 as part of the Community support
framework for Community structural operations in Sicily in                 —     order the Council to pay damages in the amount of
pursuance of Objective 1, and the recovery of amounts already                    EUR 8 000;
paid by the Commission by virtue of that contribution.
                                                                           —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:
—     Infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC)
      No 4253/88 ( 1) of 19 December 1988, laying down                     Pleas in law and main arguments
      provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/
      88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different
      Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-               The applicant in this case contests the assessments contained
      ations of the European Investment Bank and the other                 in her definitive staff report for the period from 1 July 1999
      existing financial instruments inasmuch as the CIS did               to 30 June 2001.
      not wilfully misuse the approved subsidy but was unable
      to supplement it through no fault of its own, the fault
      being exclusively that of the Sicilian regional adminis-             She alleges in that respect breach of the Guide to Staff Reports
      tration which delayed in drawing up the contract between             and a manifest error of assessment. These are apparent in
      the defendant and the CIS.                                           particular from the implied criticism that the applicant did not
                                                                           participate fully in all the tasks of the service on medical
—     Infringement of clause 14 of the abovementioned agree-               grounds.
      ment inasmuch as the Commission should have acknowl-
      edged the reimbursement of the expense incurred, par-
      ticularly in view of the fact that in the present case the
      intermediary was not able to carry out the planned
      activities for unforeseeable reasons beyond its control.
The applicant also pleads breach of the principles of force
majeure, proportionality and legitimate expectations and, in
the present case, misuse of powers.                                        Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley
                                                                                against the Council of the European Union
( 1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.
                                                                                (Case T-106/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 112/88)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 17 March 2003 by Triantafyllia
Dionyssopoulou against the Council of the European
                              Union
                                                                           An action against the Council of the European Union was
                          (Case T-105/03)                                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley, residing
                                                                           in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Sébastien
                          (2003/C 112/87)                                  Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis et Étienne Marchal,
                                                                           lawyers.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                 —     annul the decision finalising the applicant’s definitive staff
Communities on 17 March 2003 by Triantafyllia Dionysso-                          report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;
poulou, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by François
Renard, lawyer.                                                            —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case C-351/16 P: Appeal brought on 24 June 2016 by 100 % Capri Italia Srl against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2016 in Case T-198/14, Capri Italia v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (100 % Capri)

text:
               16.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 14/19

         Appeal brought on 24 June 2016 by 100 % Capri Italia Srl against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 19 April 2016 in Case T-198/14, Capri Italia v EUIPO — IN.PRO.DI (100 % Capri)

   (Case C-351/16 P)
   (2017/C 014/24)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: 100 % Capri Italia Srl (represented by: P. Pozzi, G. Ghisletti, F. Braga, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Inghirami produzione distribuzione SpA (IN.PRO.DI)
   By order of 10 November 2016, the Court (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered 100 % Capri Italia Srl to bear its own costs.


title: Case T-787/16: Action brought on 11 November 2016 — QD v EUIPO

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/40

         Action brought on 11 November 2016 — QD v EUIPO
   (Case T-787/16)
   (2017/C 022/55)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: QD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: H. Tettenborn, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of EUIPO of 4 March 2016 not to adopt a definitive decision regarding the applicant’s request of 19 January 2016 for a second renewal of her contract concluded under Art. 2(f) CEOS and to defer a definitive decision about the applicant’s request of 19 January 2016 for a second renewal of her contract concluded under Art. 2(f) CEOS to a ‘specific procedure’ in the future; and

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the procedural costs.

      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 that the EUIPO has infringed the relevant provisions of the SR and CEOS, namely Art. 90(1) SR (in connection with Art. 46 CEOS), Annex III to the SR, Art. 2, 8, 53, CEOS, 110 SR;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached its fiduciary duty;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO breached the principle of sound administration (Art. 41 (1), Art. 41 (2)(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (CFR);

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the EUIPO committed a misuse of power.


title: Case C-27/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Innsbruck by order of that Court of 14 January 2002 in the case of Petra Engler against Janus Versand Gesellschaft m.b.H.

text:
4.5.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 109/23
as precluding a social plan under which all female employees             3.b)     Is this directive to be interpreted as precluding a social
aged 50 and over at the time of their dismissal and all male             plan under which all female employees aged 50 and over at
employees aged 55 and over at the time of their dismissal are            the time of their dismissal and all male employees aged 55 and
entitled, irrespective of the period of employment, that is to           over at the time of their dismissal are entitled, irrespective of
say with no account being had to any ‘qualification periods’             the period of employment, that is to say with no account
and solely on the basis of age — or to the fact that the risk of         being had to any ‘qualification periods’ and solely on the basis
long-term unemployment for men and for women generally                   of age — or to the fact that the risk of long-term unemploy-
differs according to their age &mdash, to a ‘bridging allowance’         ment for men and for women generally differs according to
amounting to 75 % of their final gross monthly salary for five           their age —, to a ‘bridging allowance’ amounting to 75 % of
years, but at most until they become entitled to a statutory             their final gross monthly salary for five years, but at most until
pension?                                                                 they become entitled to a statutory pension?
1.b)     In particular, is the concept of pay in Article 141 EC
and Article 1 of the directive to be construed as including, in
the case of benefits which are related not to work performed
but solely to membership of a workforce and the social
obligation on the employer, allowance for the risk of long-
term unemployment so that pay must regarded as equal where
— overall — it covers the same degree of risk even though
this risk normally occurs in different age groups in the case of         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-
men and women?                                                           richt Innsbruck by order of that Court of 14 January
                                                                         2002 in the case of Petra Engler against Janus Versand
                                                                                Gesellschaft m.b.H.
1.c)     Or can, if the concept of ‘pay’ in these provisions after
all covers only the cash benefit as such, the varying risk thus                                     (Case C-27/02)
construed justify different treatment of men and women?
                                                                                (2002/C 109/37)
2.     Is the concept of ‘occupational social security schemes’
within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Council Directive
86/378/EEC of 24 July 1986 on the implementation of
the principle of equal treatment for men and women in                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
occupational social security schemes (OJ 1986 L 225, p. 40),             European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
as amended by Council Directive 96/97/EC of 20 December                  (Higher Regional Court) Innsbruck of 14 January 2002,
1996 (OJ 1996 L 46, p. 20), to be construed as including                 received at the Court Registry on 31 January 2002, for a
bridging allowances in the above sense?                                  preliminary ruling in the case of Petra Engler against Janus
                                                                         Versand Gesellschaft m.b.H. on the following questions:
                                                                         For the purposes of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction
Is the concept of the risk of ‘old age, including early retirement’      and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial
in Article 4 of the directive to be construed as including such          Matters of 27 September 1968 (‘the Convention’), does the
‘bridging allowances’?                                                   provision in Paragraph 5j of the Austrian Konsumentenschutz-
                                                                         gesetz (Consumer Protection Law) (‘KSchG’), BGBl. 1979/140,
                                                                         in the version of Paragraph 1(2), of the Austrian Fernabsatz-
                                                                         Gesetz (Distance Selling Law), BGBl. I 1999/185, which entitles
Does the concept of ‘scheme’ in Article 6(1)(c) of the directive         consumers to claim from undertakings in the courts prizes
cover only the question of fulfilment of the requirements for            ostensibly won by them where the undertakings send (or have
entitlement to the bridging allowance or also membership of              sent) them prize notifications or other similar communications
the workforce as a whole?                                                worded so as to give the impression that they have won a
                                                                         particular prize, also constitute:
3.a)     Is Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976              1.    a contractual claim under Article 13(3); or
on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for
men and women as regards access to employment, vocational                2.    a contractual claim under Article 5(1); or
training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976
L 39, p. 40) to be interpreted to the effect that the ‘bridging
allowance’ described above constitutes a condition governing             3.    a claim in respect of a tort, delict or quasi-delict under
dismissal within the meaning of Article 5 of this directive?                   Article 5(3)
 ---pagebreak--- C 109/24                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.5.2002
where on the basis of the documents sent to him a sensible              3.    Are carers within the meaning of Paragraph 19 of
consumer could have thought that all he had to do to claim                    Volume XI of the SGB workers within the meaning of
the amount held for him was to return an enclosed payment                     Article 39 EC? If so, does that preclude denying them the
notice, so that the payment of the prize did not depend on an                 right to have ‘pension insurance contributions’ paid on
order for and delivery of goods from the undertaking promis-                  their behalf on the basis that they do not have their
ing the prize, but where a catalogue and a voucher for a trial                residence or habitual place of stay in the relevant country?
offer without obligation are sent to the consumer with the
prize notification?
If the first question is answered in the affirmative, there is no       (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.
need to answer the other two questions.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Socialgericht
Aachen by order of 18 January 2002 in the case of Maria
Barth against Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz,
additional parties (1) PAX Familienfürsorge Krankenver-                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
sicherung and (2) Landesamt für Besoldung und Versor-                   tungsgericht by order of that Court of 8 November 2001
                   gung Nordrhein-Westfalen                             in the case of Landeszahnärztekammer Hessen against
                                                                                Dr Markus Vogel
                           (Case C-31/02)
                                                                                (Case C-35/02)
                          (2002/C 109/38)
                                                                                (2002/C 109/39)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Socialgericht Aachen
(Social Court, Aachen) of 18 January 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 4 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Maria Barth against Landesversicherungsanstalt              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Rheinprovinz, additonal parties (1) PAX Familienfürsorge                European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsger-
Krankenversicherung and (2) Landesamt für Besoldung und                 icht (Federal Administrative Court) of 8 November 2001,
Versorgung Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:              received at the Court Registry on 12 February 2002, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Landeszahnärztekammer
1.    Are the provisions of Regulation EEC No 1408/71 (1) of            Hessen against Dr Markus Vogel on the following question:
      the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
      security schemes to employed persons and their families
      moving within the Community also applicable to the                Is it compatible with Article 1 of Council Directive
      German care insurance regime if cover for the risk                78/687/EEC (1) of 25 July 1978 concerning the coordination
      of becoming reliant on care under Paragraph 23, in                of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
      conjunction with Paragraph 110, of Volume XI of the               action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners (OJ
      Sozialgesetzbuch (German Code of Social Law, herein-              1978 L 233, p. 10) for national legislation to permit doctors
      after ‘the SGB’), which relates to Social Care Insurance, is      in general to practise dentistry on a permanent basis without
      based in whole or in part on a private care insurance             having the dental training required by the directive and
      policy?                                                           certified by an appropriate diploma?
2.    Do the contributions payable to the statutory pension
                                                                        Does the answer to this question turn on whether the activity
      insurance scheme by care insurance institutions on behalf
                                                                        is pursued under the title ‘dental practitioner’?
      of carers not acting in the course of employment pursuant
      to Paragraph 44 of Volume XI of the SGB, in conjunction
      with Paragraphs 3(1)(1)(a) and 166(2) of Volume VI of
      the SGB, which relates to Statutory Pension Insurance,
      constitute ‘sickness benefits’ within the meaning of              (1) OJ L 233 of 24.8.1978, p. 10.
      Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No EEC No 1408/71? If so,
      may such benefits be payable on behalf of carers who
      provide care in the country of the competent institution
      but live in a different Member State?


title: Case C-202/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) by order of that court of 20 December 2004 in Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem v Comptroller-General of Patents

text:
               6.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/8

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) by order of that court of 20 December 2004 in Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem v Comptroller-General of Patents
   (Case C-202/05)
   (2005/C 193/14)
   Language of the case: English
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) of 20 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 9 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Yissum Research and Development Company of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Comptroller-General of Patents on the following questions:
   The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Communities is requested on the following questions which arise on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (1) (hereafter ‘the Regulation’):

               1.

               In a case in which the basic patent protects a second medical application of a therapeutic agent what is meant by ‘product’ in Article 1 (b) of the Regulation and in particular does the application of the therapeutic agent play any part in the definition of ‘product’ for the purpose of the Regulation?

               2.

               Does the term ‘combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product’ within the meaning of Article l(b) of the Regulation mean that each component of the combination must have therapeutic activity?

               3.

               Is there a ‘combination of active ingredients of a medicinal product’ where a combination of substances comprising two components of which one component is a substance with a therapeutic effect for a specific indication and the other component renders possible a form of the medicinal product that brings about efficacy of the medicinal product for that indication?

      (1)  OJ L 182, 02.07.1992, p. 1


title: Case T-271/99: Action brought on 3 November 1999 by Territorio Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación Foral de Alava against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 47/30                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.2.2000
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:            Action brought on 3 November 1999 by Territorio
                                                                         Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputación
                                                                         Foral de Alava against Commission of the European
— Annul the Commission decision of 14 July 1999 in so far                                             Communities
    as it classifies as State aid within the meaning of Article 87
    EC the tax credit provided for in Norma Foral de Gipuzkoa
    (Gipuzkoa Regional Law) No 7/1997 of 22 December                                                (Case T-271/99)
    1997;
                                                                                (2000/C 47/52)
— Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 3 November
                                                                         1999 by Territorio Histórico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia
                                                                         — Diputación Foral de Alava, Alava (Spain), represented by
In support of its claims, the applicant submits that, in the             Antonio Creus Carreras and Begoña Uriarte Valiente, of
contested decision, the Commission:                                      the Barcelona and Madrid Bars respectively, of Cuatrecasas
                                                                         Abogados, 60 Av. de Cortenbergh, Brussels.
— misinterprets the concept of State aid appearing in
    Article 87(1) EC in taking the view that the tax credit              The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
    provided for in the abovementioned Norma Foral de
    Gipuzkoa constitutes a measure of a selective nature and             — Annul the Commission decision of 14 July 1999 in so far
    therefore State aid; in the applicant’s view, the tax credit              as it classifies as State aid within the meaning of Article 87
    constitutes a measure of a general nature since it applies to             EC the tax credit provided for in Norma Foral de Alava
    all economic operators alike, provided that they meet the                 (Alava Regional Law) No 22/1994 of 20 December 1994,
    requirements laid down in that instrument, which are                      as amended;
    objective and non-discriminatory; even if the measure in
    question were in some degree selective, it would be                  — Order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
    justified by the nature of the system, since the latter is
    non-discriminatory in its scope, being based on objective
    and horizontal conditions or criteria, and it also contributes       Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
    to the efficiency of the tax system of which it forms part;
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with those
— misinterprets Article 87 EC in considering that State aid              used in T-269/99.
    exists where there has been no proof of distortion of
    competition or of any impact on trade between Member
    States, as required by that provision;
— mistakenly takes the view that the Spanish authorities
    infringed the obligation of notification laid down in
    Article 88(3) EC;
                                                                         Action brought on 3 November 1999 by Territorio His-
                                                                         tórico de Bizkaia, Bizkaiko Foru Aldundia — Diputación
— has misused its powers by using the State aid procedure                Foral de Bizkaia against Commission of the European
    instead of the procedure provided for by the Community                                            Communities
    legislature (tax harmonisation), under which its powers are
    much more limited since they are shared with the Council
                                                                                (Case T-272/99)
    of the European Union;
                                                                                (2000/C 47/53)
— has failed to fulfil the obligation to state reasons since it
    has not clarified the points of fact and of law which
    prompted it to classify the contested tax measure as State
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
    aid, within the meaning of Article 87 EC.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 3 November
                                                                         1999 by Territorio Histórico de Bizkaia, Bizkaiko Foru Aldun-
                                                                         dia — Diputación Foral de Bizkaia (Spain), represented by


title: Case T-123/11: Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Legré v Council

text:
               30.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 130/18

         Action brought on 2 March 2011 — Legré v Council
   (Case T-123/11)
   2011/C 130/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Thierry Legré (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: J. -C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire, and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, to the extent that they concern the applicant;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicant are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.


title: Case T-583/10: Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM — TeliaSonera Denmark (Shade of magenta)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/31

         Action brought on 27 December 2010 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM — TeliaSonera Denmark (Shade of magenta)
   (Case T-583/10)
   2011/C 55/56
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard and B. Goebel, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TeliaSonera Denmark A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 October 2010 in case R 463/2009-4;

               —

               Order the defendant or the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, should it become an intervening party in this case, to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The colour mark consisting in a shade of magenta for services in classes 38 and 42 — Community trade mark registration No 212787

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

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

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The party requesting the declaration of invalidity grounded its request on absolute grounds for refusal pursuant to Articles 4 and 7(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Closed the case following the withdrawal of the request for declaration of invalidity

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal as inadmissible

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 59 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) failed to properly assess the admissibility of the appeal, and (ii) violated Articles 85(3) and 83 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, by denying the legitimate interest to continue the proceedings.


title: Case C-338/16 P: Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-551/15 Portugal v Commission

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/12

         Appeal brought on 16 June 2016 by the Portuguese Republic against the order of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 19 April 2016 in Case T-551/15 Portugal v Commission
   (Case C-338/16 P)
   (2016/C 326/22)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Figueiredo, P. Estêvão and J. Saraiva de Almeida, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as, in that judgment, the General Court accepted the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Commission in the present proceedings;

               —

               Declare that the appeal of the contested decision has been validly brought within the period laid down in Article 263 TFEU.

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay all of the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Portuguese Republic considers that the decision is invalid on the following grounds:

      A — First ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings against the decision of 20 July 2015

      First argument

   Infringement of Article 263 TFEU.

      Second argument

   Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of notification of the final decision on 20 July 2015.

      B — Second Ground — Calculation of the time-limit for bringing proceedings from the date of publication of the contested decision in the Official Journal

      First argument

   The wording of Article 263(6) TFEU.

      Second argument

   The consistent practice of publishing such decisions and identical prior legal proceedings.

      C — Third Ground — The General Court erred in law in so far as it did not favour an interpretation that did not result in lapse of the right to bring proceedings


title: Case C-390/08: Action brought on 5 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/27

         Action brought on 5 September 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-390/08)
   (2008/C 285/45)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to communicate the information required by Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (1), read in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Commission Decision No 166/2005/EC of 10 February 2005 laying down rules implementing Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning a mechanism for monitoring Community greenhouse gas emissions and for implementing the Kyoto Protocol (2), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC, read in conjunction with Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Decision No 166/2005/EC;

               —

               Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Decision No 280/2004/EC, read in combination with Decision No 166/2005/EC, the Member States were required to communicate to the Commission, by 15 March 2005 and every two years thereafter information on the national measures adopted to limit and/or reduce greenhouse gas emissions and implement the Kyoto Protocol.
   At the date on which the present action was brought, the defendant had not communicated the measures in question to the Commission.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 49, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2005 L 55, p. 57.


title: Case C-393/15: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie v ESET spol. s.r.o. sp. zo.o. Oddzial w Polsce (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 168 — Article 169(a) — Company established in a Member State in which it carries out taxable transactions — Branch registered in another Member State for the payment of value added tax — Occasional taxable transactions made in that State — Main activity consisting in the performance of internal transactions for the benefit of that company — Input tax paid by that company — Deducted in the Member State of registration

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/4

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie v ESET spol. s.r.o. sp. zo.o. Oddzial w Polsce
   (Case C-393/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168 - Article 169(a) - Company established in a Member State in which it carries out taxable transactions - Branch registered in another Member State for the payment of value added tax - Occasional taxable transactions made in that State - Main activity consisting in the performance of internal transactions for the benefit of that company - Input tax paid by that company - Deducted in the Member State of registration)
   (2016/C 326/06)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Krakowie

      Defendant: ESET spol. s.r.o. sp. zo.o. Oddzial w Polsce

      Operative part of the order

   Article 168 and Article 169(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that a branch registered in one Member State for the payment of value added tax for a company established in another Member State and which mainly carries out internal transactions not subject to that tax for that company, but also occasionally transactions taxed in the Member State where it is registered, is entitled to deduct input tax in the latter State charged on goods and services used for the needs of that company’s taxable transactions carried out in the Member State where the branch is established.

      (1)  OJ C 337 of 12.10.2015.


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 228, 11.9.2004

text:
               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/29

         (2004/C 239/65)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the
         Official Journal of the European Union

      OJ C 228, 11.9.2004

   Past publications

      OJ C 217, 28.8.2004

      OJ C 201, 7.8.2004

      OJ C 190, 24.7.2004

      OJ C 179, 10.7.2004

      OJ C 168, 26.6.2004

      OJ C 156, 12.6.2004

   These texts are available on:

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

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


title: Case C-112/12: Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hongrie) — Franklin Templeton Investment Funds Société d’Investissement à Capital Variable v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága

text:
               2.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/15

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2012 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Kúria — Hongrie) — Franklin Templeton Investment Funds Société d’Investissement à Capital Variable v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Ügyek és Adózók Adó Főigazgatósága
   (Case C-112/12) (1)

   2013/C 63/28
   Language of the case: Hungarian
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.


title: Case C-371/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of movement for workers — Post in the civil service — Failure to take account of professional experience and seniority gained in other Member States — Articles 10 EC and 39 EC — Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 October 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-371/04) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom of movement for workers - Post in the civil service - Failure to take account of professional experience and seniority gained in other Member States - Articles 10 EC and 39 EC - Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68)
   (2006/C 326/10)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Rozet and A. Aresu, Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I.M. Braguglia, Agent, and G. Albenzio, avvocato dello Stato)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 10 EC and 39 EC and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1968 (II) p. 475) — Employees of the Italian public service — Failure to take account of the professional experience and seniority acquired in another Member State
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take into account the professional experience and seniority gained in the exercise of a comparable activity within the public administration of another Member State by a Community worker employed in the Italian civil service, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 39 EC and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 06.11.2004.


title: Case C-149/09: Action brought on 27 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/33

         Action brought on 27 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-149/09)
   2009/C 141/60
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Dejmek and J. Sénéchal, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2006/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 amending Council Directive 77/91/EEC as regards the formation of public limited liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital (1), or, as the case may be, by failing to inform the Commission of those provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for the transposition of Directive 2006/68/EC expired on 15 April 2008. However, at the time the present action was brought, the defendant had not yet adopted all the measures necessary to transpose the directive or, as the case may be, had not informed the Commission thereof.

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 264, p. 32.


title: Case C-580/15: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge — Belgium) — Maria Eugenia Van der Weegen, Miguel Juan Van der Weegen, Anna Pot, acting as successors in title to Johannes Van der Weegen, deceased, Anna Pot v Belgische Staat (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 56 TFEU — Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Tax legislation — Income tax — Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by banks complying with certain statutory conditions — Indirect discrimination — Banks established in Belgium and banks established in another Member State)

text:
               31.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 249/6

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 8 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge — Belgium) — Maria Eugenia Van der Weegen, Miguel Juan Van der Weegen, Anna Pot, acting as successors in title to Johannes Van der Weegen, deceased, Anna Pot v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-580/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 56 TFEU - Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Tax legislation - Income tax - Tax exemption reserved to interest payments by banks complying with certain statutory conditions - Indirect discrimination - Banks established in Belgium and banks established in another Member State))
   (2017/C 249/08)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, West-Vlaanderen, afdeling Brugge

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Maria Eugenia Van der Weegen, Miguel Juan Van der Weegen, Anna Pot, acting as successors in title to Johannes Van der Weegen, deceased, Anna Pot

      Defendant: Belgische Staat

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 56 TFEU and Article 36 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a national tax exemption system, to the extent that that system, although applicable without distinction to income from savings deposits held with banking service providers established in Belgium or in another Member State of the European Economic Area, imposes conditions for access to the Belgian banking market on service providers established in other Member States, this being a matter for the referring court to verify.

      (1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.


title: Case C-437/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Unitrading Ltd v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Community Customs Code — Recovery of import duties — Origin of goods — Means of proof — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Rights of the defence — Right to effective judicial protection — Procedural autonomy of the Member States)

text:
               8.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 439/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 23 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — Unitrading Ltd v Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   (Case C-437/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Community Customs Code - Recovery of import duties - Origin of goods - Means of proof - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Procedural autonomy of the Member States))
   (2014/C 439/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Unitrading Ltd

      Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding proof of origin of imported goods adduced by the customs authorities on the basis of national procedural rules resting on the results of an examination carried out by a third party, with regard to which that third party refuses to disclose further information either to the customs authorities or to the customs declarant, as a result of which it is made difficult or impossible to verify or disprove the correctness of the conclusions reached, provided that the principles of effectiveness and equivalence are upheld. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is so in the main proceedings.

               2.

               In a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, and when the customs authorities cannot disclose further information in respect of the examination carried out, whether the customs authorities must grant the request of the party concerned that it conducts, at its own expense, an examination in the country declared as the country of origin and whether it matters that portions of the samples of the goods, to which the party concerned could have obtained access with a view to having an examination carried out by another laboratory, were still available for a limited period and, if so, whether the customs authorities must inform the party concerned that portions of the samples of the goods are still available and that it may request those samples for purposes of such an examination must be assessed on the basis of national procedural law.

      (1)  OJ C 325, 9.11.2013.


title: Case T-459/17: Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Fifth Avenue Entertainment v EUIPO — Commodore Entertainment Corporation (THE COMMODORES)

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/36

         Action brought on 21 July 2017 — Fifth Avenue Entertainment v EUIPO — Commodore Entertainment Corporation (THE COMMODORES)
   (Case T-459/17)
   (2017/C 309/47)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fifth Avenue Entertainment LLC (Orlando, Florida, United States) (represented by: B. Brandreth, barrister and D. Cañadas Arcas, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Commodore Entertainment Corporation (Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: EU word mark ‘THE COMMODORES’ — Application for registration No 13 370 077

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 May 2017 in Case R 851/2016-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               payment of the appellant’s cost.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(4) of No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(2)(c) of No 207/2009.


title: Case C-95/05: Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/21

         Action brought on 21 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-95/05)
   (2005/C 93/38)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Knut Simonsson and Georgios Zavvos, of the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel traffic monitoring and information system and repealing Council Directive 93/75/EEC, and in any event by failing to inform the Commission of such measures, the Hellenic Republic is failing to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 5 February 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 208 of 5.08.2002, p. 10.


title: Case T-238/09 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2009 — Sniace v Commission (Application for interim measures — State aid — Decision declaring an aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery — Application for suspension of operation — Failure to have regard to formal requirements — Inadmissibility)

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/33

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 13 July 2009 — Sniace v Commission
   (Case T-238/09 R)
   (Application for interim measures - State aid - Decision declaring an aid to be incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery - Application for suspension of operation - Failure to have regard to formal requirements - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 220/69
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Sniace, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F.J. Moncholí Fernández, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Urraca Caviedes, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the operation of Commission Decision C(2009) 1479 final of 10 March 2009 relating to measure C 5/2000 (ex NN 118/1997) implemented by Spain in favour of Sniace, SA, Torrelavega, Cantabria, and amending Decision 1999/395/EC of 28 October 1998

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-482/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2017 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Development of the Community’s railways — Directive 91/440/EEC — Article 6(1) — Deutsche Bahn group — Profit transfer agreement — Prohibition of the transfer of public aid earmarked for the management of railway infrastructure to rail transport services — Accounting obligations — Directive 91/440/EEC — Article 9(4) — Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 — Article 6(1) — Point 5 of the annex — Accounting obligations — Presentation contract by contract of public aid paid for activities relating to the provision of passenger transport services in respect of public service remits)

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/2

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2017 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-482/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Development of the Community’s railways - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 6(1) - Deutsche Bahn group - Profit transfer agreement - Prohibition of the transfer of public aid earmarked for the management of railway infrastructure to rail transport services - Accounting obligations - Directive 91/440/EEC - Article 9(4) - Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 - Article 6(1) - Point 5 of the annex - Accounting obligations - Presentation contract by contract of public aid paid for activities relating to the provision of passenger transport services in respect of public service remits))
   (2017/C 283/02)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and T. Maxian Rusche and by J. Hottiaux, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents, and by R. Van der Hout, advocaat)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, Agent, and by S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato), Republic of Latvia (represented by: I. Kucina and by J. Treijs-Gigulis and I. Kalniņš, Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Holds that, by failing to take all measures necessary to ensure that the detailed rules on account-keeping make it possible to monitor the prohibition of transferring public funds earmarked for the management of railway infrastructure to transport services, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 6(1) of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on the development of the Community’s railways, as amended by Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001;

               2.

               Dismisses the remainder of the action;

               3.

               Orders the European Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic and the Republic of Latvia to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 19.6.2015.


title: Case C-344/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2016 — Die Länderbahn GmbH DLB v DB Station & Service AG

text:
               21.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 428/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 21 June 2016 — Die Länderbahn GmbH DLB v DB Station & Service AG
   (Case C-344/16)
   (2016/C 428/03)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Die Länderbahn GmbH DLB

      Defendant: DB Station & Service AG

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is a provision of national law under which the user of a railway infrastructure against whom an action has been brought by the infrastructure manager before a civil court for payment of a user charge, or who seeks before that court to secure repayment of user charges already paid, may argue that the charge set by the infrastructure manager is not fair and reasonable compatible with the provisions of the directive (1) concerning the independence of the management of the infrastructure undertaking (Article 4(1), (4) and (5)), the principles governing the fixing of charges (Articles 7 to 12) and the tasks of the regulatory body (Article 30)?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: is a provision of national law compatible with the abovementioned provisions of the directive where, under that provision of national law, the court is entitled and obliged, should it conclude that the charge set is not fair, to determine by judicial decision what charge will instead be payable?

      (1)  Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification (OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29).


title: Case T-681/13: Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Colomer Italy v OHIM — Farmaca International (INTERCOSMO ESTRO)

text:
               15.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/13

         Action brought on 20 December 2013 — Colomer Italy v OHIM — Farmaca International (INTERCOSMO ESTRO)
   (Case T-681/13)
   2014/C 78/26
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Colomer Italy SpA (Sala Bolognese, Italy) (represented by: M. Ricolfi, F. Tarocco and C. Mezzetti, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Farmaca International SpA (Turin, Italy)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Uphold the present action and consequently annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 3 October 2013, notified on 17 October 2013, given in Case R 1186/2012-1;

               —

               Reject Farmaca International SpA.’s opposition to the registration of the mark ‘INTERCOSMO ESTRO’, so that that registration is granted;

               —

               Order that the applicant’s costs in the proceedings be awarded in its favour.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Colomer Italy SpA

      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘INTERCOSMO ESTRO’ for goods in class 3

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Farmaca International SpA

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Non-registered figurative mark ‘ESTRO’ for ‘hair and cosmetic’ goods

      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed

      Pleas in law: Infringement and misapplication of Articles 8(4), 7(1) and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.


title: Case C-362/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Judicial protection — Principle of effectiveness — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Restitution of sums paid but not due — Remedies — National legislation — Curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies without notice and retroactively)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/16

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-362/12) (1)

   (Judicial protection - Principle of effectiveness - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations - Restitution of sums paid but not due - Remedies - National legislation - Curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies without notice and retroactively)
   2014/C 52/26
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation

      Defendants: Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU — National taxes contrary to European Union law — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Coexistence, under national law, of two alternative causes of action open to taxpayers for the purpose of seeking repayment of sums due, one of which provides for a longer period within which an action may be brought than the other — National legislation which reduces, retroactively and without prior notice, the longer of the two limitation periods — Whether compatible with the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and legitimate expectations.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In a situation in which, under national law, taxpayers have a choice between two possible causes of action as regards the recovery of tax levied in breach of European Union law, one of which benefits from a longer limitation period, the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations preclude national legislation curtailing that limitation period without notice and retroactively;

               2.

               It makes no difference to the answer to the first question that, at the time when the taxpayer issued its claim, the availability of the cause of action affording the longer limitation period had been recognised only recently by a lower court and was not definitively confirmed by the highest judicial authority until later.

      (1)  OJ C 311, 13.10.2012.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (First Chamber) of 6 April 1995 in Case T-141/89: Tréfileurope Sales SARL v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty)

text:
3 . 6 . 95              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 137/ 17
Chambers of Georges Margue, 20 Rue Philippe II,                        annulment      of   Commission      Decision  89/515/EEC     of
T-107/89 , Chemie Holding AG, whose registered office is in            2 August 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of
Linz ( Austria ), represented by Otfried Lieberknecht,                 the EEC Treaty ( IV/3 1 . 553 — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989
Rechtsanwalt, Diisseldorf, with an address for service in              L 260 , p. 1 ) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber ),
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Bonn, 22 Cote d'Eich,               composed of H. Kirschner, President, C. W. Bellamy, B.
T-l 12/89 , The Dow Chemical Company, whose registered                 Vesterdorf, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts , Judges;
office is in Midland , Michigan ( United States of America ),          H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in
represented by Arved Deringer, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne,                  which the Court :
Pierre Bos, of the Rotterdam Bar, and Jose Perez Santos, of
the Madrid Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg              I. dismisses the application;
at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter , 11 Rue Goethe,
v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : J.                2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs.
Currall, B. J. Drijber, F. E. Gonzalez Diaz, E. Morgan de
Rivery, R. Morresi , N. Forwood and A. Bohlke ) —                      (») OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
application for annulment of Commission Decision
89/191 /EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding
pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( IV/31.866 , LdPE )
( OJ 1989 L 74 , p. 21 ), — the Court of First Instance ( Second
Chamber ), composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President,
D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio, C. P. Briët and J. Biancarelli,         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Judges, H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 April                                    ( First Chamber )
 1995 , in which it :
                                                                                of 6 April 1995
 1 . dismisses the objection ofinadmissibility put forward by          in Case T-142/89 : Usines Gustave Boel SA v. Commission
      the Commission in Case T-l 03/89;                                               of the European Communities (^
                                                                        (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the
2 . annuls Commission Decision 89/191 /EEC of                                                         Treaty)
      21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
      Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.866, LdPE);                                             ( 95/C 137/41 )
 3 . dismisses the claims for a declaration that Commission                            (Language of the Case: French)
      Decision 89/191 /EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to
      a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty             In Case T-142/89 : Usines Gustave Boel SA, established in
       (IV/31.866, LdPE) is non-existent;
                                                                        Brussels , represented by Georges Vandersanden and Lucette
 4 . dismisses as inadmissible the claim for compensation in            Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
       Case T-l 05/89 ;                                                 Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Rue
                                                                        Guillaume , v. Commission of the European Communities
 5 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                            ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa, J. Currall, A. Coutrelis and N.
                                                                        Coutrelis ) — application for the annulment of Commission
 (') OJ No C 182 , 19 . 7 . 1989 and OJ No C 177, 13 . 7 . 1989 .       Decision 89/515/EEC of 2 August 1989 relating to a
                                                                        proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553
                                                                        — Welded steel mesh, OJ 1989 L 260 , p. 1 ) — the Court of
                                                                        First Instance ( First Chamber ) composed of H. Kirschner,
                                                                        President, C. W. Bellamy, B. Vesterdorf, R.
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Garcia-Valdecasas and K. Lenaerts, Judges , H. Jung,
                                                                        Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 April 1995 , in which the
                          ( First Chamber )                             Court :
                          of 6 April 1995
 in Case T-141/89: Tréfileurope Sales SARL v. Commission                1 . reduces the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant
               of the European Communities (*)                              by Article 3 of Commission Decision 89/515/EEC of
                                                                            2 August 1 989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85
  (Competition — Infringement of Article 85 of the                          of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.553 — Welded steel mesh) to
                                Treaty)                                     ECU 440 000;
                            ( 95/C 137/40 )
                                                                        2 . dismisses the application as regards the remaining
                 (Language of the Case: French)                             claims;
 In Case T-141 /89 : Trefileurope Sales SARL, formerly called           3 . orders the applicant to bear its costs and to pay
 Trefilarbed SA, then Trefilarbed Luxembourg-Saarbrücken                    three-fifths of the Commission 's costs;
 SARL, established in Luxembourg, represented by
 Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address for             4 . orders the Commission to bear two-fifths of its costs.
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch,
  11 Rue Goethe , v. Commission of the European                          (M OJ No C 306 , 5 . 12 . 1989 .
  Communities ( Agents N. Koch, E. Traversa, J. Currall, A.
  Coutrelis and N. Coutrelis ) — application for the