C 211/16              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22.7.2000
       Removal from the register of Case C-33/98 (1)               European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
                                                                   and Northern Ireland.
                       (2000/C 211/27)
                                                                   (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.
By order of 26 January 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-33/98: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                 Removal from the register of Case C-60/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/31)
                                                                   By order of 20 March 2000 the President of the Court of
                                                                   Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
       Removal from the register of Case C-386/99 (1)              from the register of Case C-60/99 (reference for a preliminary
                                                                   ruling from the Supreme Court of Dublin): Carmen Proetta v
                       (2000/C 211/28)                             Andrew Neil.
By order of 29 February 2000 the President of the Court of         (1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-386/99: Commission of the
European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
(1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-48/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/32)
                                                                   By order of 30 March 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber
       Removal from the register of Case C-385/98 (1)              of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                                                                   ordered the removal from the register of Case C-48/99:
                       (2000/C 211/29)                             Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of
                                                                   Luxembourg.
By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Fifth Chamber
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has            (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
ordered the removal from the register of Case C-385/98:
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                          Removal from the register of Case C-287/99 (1)
                                                                                (2000/C 211/33)
       Removal from the register of Case C-455/99 (1)              By order of 30 March 2000 the President of the Sixth Chamber
                                                                   of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has
                       (2000/C 211/30)                             ordered the removal from the register of Case C-287/99:
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of
By order of 15 March 2000 the President of the Court of            Belgium.
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-455/99: Commission of the              (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.


title: Case T-190/17: Action brought on 22 March 2017 — EKETA v Commission

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/44

         Action brought on 22 March 2017 — EKETA v Commission
   (Case T-190/17)
   (2017/C 151/56)
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) (Thessaloniki, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos and S. Paliou, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               declare that the request made by the European Commission to ΕΚΕΤΑ to reimburse the amount of EUR 172 992,15f the payment received by it for the CATER project, that request being made in the debit note 3241615289/29.11.2016, is unfounded with respect to the sum of EUR 112 737,15;

               —

               declare that the sum of EUR 112 737,15 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the European Commission, and

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               1.

               By this action, the Ethniko Kentro Erevnas kai Technologikis Anaptyxis (EKETA) challenges the requests made by the Commission by means of its debit note 3241615289/29.11.2016, in relation to participation in the CATER project. By means of that debit note, the Commission requested that ΕΚΕΤΑ reimburse part of the payment received by it for the CATER project, a sum of EUR 172 992,15. The request follows an on-the-spot audit which was carried out by the European Commission at the applicant’s premises.

               2.

               In that context, the applicant claims that the General Court of the European Union, under Article 272 TFEU, should declare that, out of the above amount stated in the debit note, the sum of EUR 112 737,15 constitutes eligible costs and that ΕΚΕΤΑ is not obliged to repay that sum to the Commission.

               3.

               ΕΚΕΤΑ maintains that the above amount of EUR 112 737,15 constitutes eligible staff costs and indirect costs, which the Commission wrongly rejected as being ineligible. The eligibility of the applicant’s costs is demonstrated by the evidence that it submitted to the European Commission at the on-the-spot audit and in subsequent correspondence and that it submits to the General Court.


7.2.2004              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                       C 35/19
Removal from the register of Cases T-7/95 and T-22/95 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case T-349/02 (1)
                         (2004/C 35/31)                                                            (2004/C 35/34)
                  (Language of the Case: German)                                             (Language of the Case: Italian)
By order of 9 October 2003 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                By order of 10 November 2003 the President of the Second
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-7/95: Josef               Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Lang v Council of the European Union and Commission of                    Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
the European Communities; and of Case T-22/95: Therese                    T-349/02: Società Sephora v Office for Harmonisation in the
Schweiger v Council of the European Union and Commission                  Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) (OHIM).
of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 19 of 25.01.2003.
(1) OJ C 74 of 23.3.1995.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-65/03 (1)
Partial removal from the register of Joined Cases T-306/
                      01 and T-315/01 (1)
                                                                                (2004/C 35/35)
                         (2004/C 35/32)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
           (Languages of the Cases: Swedish and English)
                                                                          By order of 11 November 2003 the President of the Fourth
By order of 9 October 2003 the President of the Second                    Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the                  T-65/03: Fondation Alsace v Commission of the European
register of the names of the appellants Abdirisak Aden and                Communities.
Abdi Abdulaziz Ali from the names of the appellants in the
Joined Cases T-306/01 and T-315/01: Abdirisak Aden and
Others v Commission of the European Communities.                          (1) OJ C 101 of 26.04.2003.
(1) OJ C 44 of 16.02.2002 and OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-121/03 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case T-141/02 (1)                                              (2004/C 35/36)
                         (2004/C 35/33)
                                                                                (Language of the Case: English)
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                          By order of 21 October 2003 the President of the Second
By order of 20 October 2003 the President of the First                    Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                 register of Case T-121/03: Greenpeace Limited and Nexgen
T-141/02: Vetoquinol AG v Office for Harmonisation in the                 Group Limited (trading as ECOTRICITY) v Commission of the
Internal Market.                                                          European Communities.
(1) OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.                                               (1) OJ C 184 of 02.08.2003.


title: Case C-261/07 and C-299/07: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — VTB-VAB NV (C-261/07) and Galatea BVBA (C-299/07) v Total Belgium NV (C-261/07) and Sanoma Magazines Belgium NV (C-299/07) (Directive 2005/29/EC — Unfair commercial practices — National legislation prohibiting combined offers to consumers)

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/3

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 23 April 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen (Belgium)) — VTB-VAB NV (C-261/07) and Galatea BVBA (C-299/07) v Total Belgium NV (C-261/07) and Sanoma Magazines Belgium NV (C-299/07)
   (Case C-261/07 and C-299/07) (1)

   (Directive 2005/29/EC - Unfair commercial practices - National legislation prohibiting combined offers to consumers)
   2009/C 141/05
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: VTB-VAB NV (C-261/07), Galatea BVBA (C-299/07)

      Defendants: Total Belgium NV (C-261/07), Sanoma Magazines Belgium NV (C-299/07)

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Rechtbank van koophandel te Antwerpen — Interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 147, p. 22) — National legislation prohibiting combined offers to consumers

      Operative part of the judgment

   Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the disputes in the main proceedings, which, with certain exceptions, and without taking account of the specific circumstances, imposes a general prohibition of combined offers made by a vendor to a consumer.

      (1)  OJ C 199, 25.8.2007.


title: Case C-391/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Jan de Nul NV v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg (Excise duties — Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils — Directive 92/81/EEC — Navigation within Community waters )

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 1 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Jan de Nul NV v Hauptzollamt Oldenburg
   (Case C-391/05) (1)

   (Excise duties - Exemption from excise duty on mineral oils - Directive 92/81/EEC - ‘Navigation within Community waters’)
   (2007/C 95/14)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jan de Nul NV

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Oldenburg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of the first subparagraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12) — Definition of ‘Community waters ’and ‘navigation ’— Taxation of mineral oils used as fuel for a floating dredger carrying out cleaning work on the Elbe.
   Operative part of the judgment

               1)

               The term ‘Community waters ’within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, relates to all waters which can be used by all sea-going vessels, including those which have the greatest capacity, capable of travelling maritime waterways for commercial purposes.

               2)

               Manoeuvres carried out by a hopper dredger during its operations of pumping and discharge of materials, that is to say, journeys inherent in the carrying out of dredging activities, come within the scope of the term ‘navigation ’as used in the first subparagraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81, as amended by Directive 94/74.

      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.


title: Case T-648/16: Action brought on 13 September 2016 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (BOBO cornet)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/56

         Action brought on 13 September 2016 — Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret v EUIPO — Zaharieva (BOBO cornet)
   (Case T-648/16)
   (2016/C 402/66)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Şölen Çikolata Gıda Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Şehitkamil Gaziantep, Turkey) (represented by: T. Tsenova, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elka Zaharieva (Plovdiv, Bulgaria)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BOBO cornet’– Application for registration No 12 299 343

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 July 2016 in Case R 906/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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

               —

               Infringement of Articles 75 and 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-284/10: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Telefónica de España SA v Administración del Estado (Directive 97/13/EC — Common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services — Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — Article 6 — Interpretation — National legislation imposing an annual fee calculated on the basis of a percentage of gross operating income)

text:
               10.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/16

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo — Spain) — Telefónica de España SA v Administración del Estado
   (Case C-284/10) (1)

   (Directive 97/13/EC - Common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services - Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations - Article 6 - Interpretation - National legislation imposing an annual fee calculated on the basis of a percentage of gross operating income)
   2011/C 269/26
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Supremo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Telefónica de España SA

      Defendant: Administración del Estado

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Supremo — Interpretation of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services (in particular, Article 6 thereof) (OJ 1997 L 117, p. 15) — Fees and charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — Imposition of financial payments above and beyond those authorised by the directive and for a purpose not provided for therein

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 6 of Directive 97/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 April 1997 on a common framework for general authorisations and individual licences in the field of telecommunications services must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State introducing a fee imposed on holders of general authorisations, calculated annually and on the basis of the gross operating income of the chargeable operators, which seeks to cover the administrative costs relating to the issue, management, control and enforcement of those authorisations, to the extent that the combined revenue received by that Member State by way of such a fee does not exceed all of those administrative costs, which is a matter for the national court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 246, 11.9.2010.


title: Case T-17/13: Order of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission (Arbitration clause — Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) — Contract concerning the Pocemon project — Repayment of the sums advanced — Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note — Reminder letter — Lack of interest in bringing proceedings — Inadmissibility)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/37

      Order of the General Court of 6 November 2014 — ANKO v Commission
      (Case T-17/13) (1)

      (Arbitration clause - Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013) - Contract concerning the Pocemon project - Repayment of the sums advanced - Letter giving notice of the issue of a debit note - Reminder letter - Lack of interest in bringing proceedings - Inadmissibility)
      (2015/C 016/58)
      Language of the case: Greek

         Parties

         Applicant: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias (Athens, Greece) (represented by: V. Christianos, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and A. Cordewener, acting as Agents, assisted by S. Drakakakis, lawyer)

         Re:

      Action brought under Article 272 TFEU, seeking a declaration by the General Court first, that the applicant is not obliged to repay the whole sum paid to it by the Commission in relation to the Pocemon project, concluded under the Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities (2007-2013), secondly, that the applicant is not required to pay flat-rate compensation in relation to that project and, thirdly, that the Commission is not entitled to set off the amounts that it owes to the applicant.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

                  2.

                  ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias is ordered to pay the costs.

         (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case T-284/13 P: Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission (Appeal — Civil service — Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible — The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same — Original application lodged out of time — Action out of time — Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/18

         Order of the General Court of 14 November 2013 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-284/13 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil service - Action dismissed at first instance as manifestly inadmissible - The application lodged by fax and the original subsequently received not the same - Original application lodged out of time - Action out of time - Appeal manifestly unfounded)
   2014/C 15/27
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and G. Gattinara, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 11 March 2013 in Case F-17/12 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Mr Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission in the appeal proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 207, 20.7.2013.


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/34

         Removal from the register of Case C-199/02 (1)

   (2004/C 94/84)
   By order of 18 February 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-199/02: European Parliament v Chubb Insurance Company of Europe SA and Others.

      (1)  OJ C 233 of 28.09.2002.


title: Case C-132/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH

text:
               8.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 164/11

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV v ILME GmbH
   (Case C-132/13)
   2013/C 164/18
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs eV

      Defendant: ILME GmbH

      Question referred

   Are Articles 1, 8 and 10 of, and Annexes II, IV and III to, Directive 2006/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the harmonisation of the laws of Member States relating to electrical equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (1) to be interpreted in such a way that housings
         as a component
       of multipole connectors for industrial purposes are
         not
       to have a ‘CE’ marking affixed to them?

      (1)  OJ 2006 L 374, p. 10.


title: Case T-346/14: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Yanukovych v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine — Freezing of funds — List of persons, entities and bodies subject to freezing of funds and economic resources — Inclusion of the applicant’s name — Rights of the defence — Obligation to state reasons — Legal basis — Right to effective judicial protection — Misuse of powers — Failure to comply with the listing criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Right to property)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — Yanukovych v Council
   (Case T-346/14) (1)

   ((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Ukraine - Freezing of funds - List of persons, entities and bodies subject to freezing of funds and economic resources - Inclusion of the applicant’s name - Rights of the defence - Obligation to state reasons - Legal basis - Right to effective judicial protection - Misuse of powers - Failure to comply with the listing criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Right to property))
   (2016/C 402/38)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych (Kiev, Ukraine) (represented by: T. Beazley QC, P. Saini QC and S. Fatima QC, H. Mussa, J. Hage and K. Howard, Barristers, and C. Kennedy, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented initially by E. Finnegan and J.-P. Hix, and subsequently by J.-P. Hix and P. Mahnič Bruni, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Republic of Poland (represented by: B. Majczyna, acting as Agent) and European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of (i) Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 26) and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine (OJ 2014 L 66, p. 1); (ii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/143 of 29 January 2015 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2015 L 24, p. 16) and Council Regulation (EU) 2015/138 of 29 January 2015 amending Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2015 L 24, p. 1), and (iii) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119 (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 25) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation No 208/2014 (OJ 2015 L 62, p. 1), in so far as the applicant’s name was included or maintained in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls — until the entry into force of Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/364 of 5 March 2015 amending Decision 2014/119 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/357 of 5 March 2015 implementing Regulation No 208/2014 — Council Decision 2014/119/CFSP of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine and Council Regulation (EU) No 208/2014 of 5 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Ukraine, in their initial versions, in so far as Mr Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych was named in the list of persons, entities and bodies subject to those restrictive measures;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Yanukovych, with respect to the claim for annulment stated in the initiating application;

               4.

               Orders Mr Yanukovych to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Council, with respect to the claim for annulment stated in the statement of modification of the forms of order sought;

               5.

               Orders the Republic of Poland and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 253, 4.8.2014.


title: Case T-633/15: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — JT International v EUIPO — Habanos (PUSH) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the EU word mark PUSH — Earlier Benelux and national word and figurative marks PUNCH — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Identity of the goods — Similarity of the signs — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/44

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2016 — JT International v EUIPO — Habanos (PUSH)
   (Case T-633/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark PUSH - Earlier Benelux and national word and figurative marks PUNCH - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 402/51)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: JT International SA (Geneva, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC and K.E. Gilbert and J. Gilbert, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Corporación Habanos, SA (Havana, Cuba) (represented by: M. Escudero Pérez, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 August 2015 (Case R 3046/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Corporación Habanos and JT International

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders JT International SA to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and by Corporación Habanos, SA.

      (1)  OJ C 27, 25.1.2016.


title: Case C-471/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 24 October 2007 — Association Générale de l'Industrie du Médicament ASBL, Bayer SA, Servier Benelux SA, Janssen Cilag SA, Pfizer SA v Belgian State — Intervener: Sanofi-Aventis Belgium SA

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État (Belgium) lodged on 24 October 2007 — Association Générale de l'Industrie du Médicament ASBL, Bayer SA, Servier Benelux SA, Janssen Cilag SA, Pfizer SA v Belgian State — Intervener: Sanofi-Aventis Belgium SA
   (Case C-471/07)
   (2008/C 22/40)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'État
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Association Générale de l'Industrie du Médicament ASBL, Bayer SA, Servier Benelux SA, Janssen Cilag SA, Pfizer SA

      Defendant: Belgian State
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (1) to be understood as meaning only review as to whether healthcare expenditure is manageable, or must it also extend to macro-economic conditions in the pharmaceutical industry sector whose products are liable to be made subject to a price freeze?

               2.

               May the review of macro-economic conditions referred to in Article 4(1) of Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988, cited above, be based on a general trend or trends, such as, for example, ensuring balance in healthcare, or must it be based on more specific criteria?

      (1)  OJ L 40 of 11.2.1989, p. 8.


title: Case C-164/11: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/4

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 October 2012 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-164/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2012/C 399/06
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the provisions necessary to adapt its electricity taxation system to the provisions laid down by Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51) — Application of a single rate on expiry of the transitional period

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to adopt the provisions necessary to adapt its electricity taxation system to the provisions laid down by Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, despite the expiry of the transitional period provided for in the second subparagraph of Article 18(10) of that directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 186, 25.6.2011.


title: Case C-317/16 P: Appeal brought on 2 June 2016 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 March 2015 in Case T-346/14: Yanukovych v Council

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/23

         Appeal brought on 2 June 2016 by Ukraine against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 11 March 2015 in Case T-346/14: Yanukovych v Council
   (Case C-317/16 P)
   (2017/C 006/29)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Ukraine (represented by: M. Kostytska, avocat)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych, Council of the European Union, European Commission, Republic of Poland
   By order of 5 October 2016 the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.


title: Case C-62/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 18 February 2008 — UDV North America Inc v Brandtraders NV

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België lodged on 18 February 2008 — UDV North America Inc v Brandtraders NV
   (Case C-62/08)
   (2008/C 107/26)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van Cassatie van België
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: UDV North America Inc

      Respondent: Brandtraders NV
   Questions referred

               (1)

               For there to be use of the sign within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a) and (2)(d) of Council Regulation 40/94 (1) of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark, is it necessary that a third party, within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a) of the Regulation:

                           (a)

                           uses the sign on his own behalf?

                           (b)

                           uses the sign as an interested party in relation to trade in goods in which he is himself a contractual party?

               (2)

               Can a trade intermediary who acts in his own name, but not on his own behalf, be regarded as a third party who uses the sign within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a) and (2)(d)?

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1996 in Case T-137/95: Paolo Mozzaglia v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Former national expert on secondment - Daily subsistence allowance - Installation allowance - Place of recruitment - Reimbursement of travel expenses on taking up an appointment)

text:
 22 . 2 . 97    •     HEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/ 19
 to appoint him as a member of the Commission 's                             his removal expenses as provided for by Article 9 (1 )
 temporary staff, and for reparation of the damage suffered                  of that Annex.
 as a result of that decision — the Court of First Instance
 ( Second Chamber ), composed of H. Kirschner, President,               3 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
 C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor,
 Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment            (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
 on 12 December 1996 , in which it:
 1.   Annuls the Commission 's decision not to recruit the
      applicant to a post on the temporary staff of the
      Community under Article 8.5 of the JET Statutes,
      communicated to him by letter of the Director of JET                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 December 1996
      dated 13 June 1994, and the Commission 's decision of
      28 December 1994 rejecting the applicant 's complaint            in Case T-137/95 : Paolo Mozzaglia v. Commission of the
      against the decision first mentioned.                                               European Communities (')
                                                                        (Officials — Former national expert on secondment —
 2 . Dismisses the remainder of the application.
                                                                       Daily subsistence allowance — Installation allowance —
                                                                       Place of recruitment — Reimbursement of travel expenses
 3 . Orders the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay
                                                                                on taking up an appointment)
      those of the applicant.
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/30 )
 (') OJ No C 286 , 28 . 10 . 1995 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       In Case T-137/95 : Paolo Mozzaglia, an official of the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                       Brussels, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini , advocate
                                                                       with a right of audience before the Italian Court of
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Cassation, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                      of 12 December 1996                              the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 rue Mathias Hardt,
in Case T-132/95 : Peter Gammeltoft v. Commission of the               v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agents :
                    European Communities (')                          Julian Currall , Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Alberto Dal
                                                                       Ferro and, in the oral procedure , Denis Waelbroeck ) —
 (Members of the temporary staff — Former national                     application for annulment of the decision of the
expert on secondment — Former member of the auxiliary                  Commission of 1 September 1994 refusing to grant the
staff — Installation          allowance — Reimbursement of
                                                                       applicant the installation allowance , to reimburse his
                        removal expenses)                              travel expenses on his taking up his appointment and to
                             ( 97/C 54/29 )                            pay the daily subsistence allowance — the Court of First
                                                                       Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of: H. Kirschner,
                  (Language of the case: French)                       President, and C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos,
                                                                      Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the
In Case T-132/95 : Peter Gammeltoft, a member of the                   Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 December 1996, in
temporary staff of the Commission of the European                     which it :
Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean
Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                1 . Annuls the Commission 's decision of 1 September
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at                  1994, inasmuch as it refuses to grant the applicant the
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 rue Glesener, v.                   installation allowance provided for by the first
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: Julian                     subparagraph of Article 5 (1 ) of Annex VII to the
Currall and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, in                            Staff Regulations, to reimburse his travel expenses on
particular, for annulment of the decision of the                            his taking up his appointment, as provided for by
Commission of 15 September 1994 refusing to grant the                       Article 7 (1 ) (a) of that Annex, and to pay the daily
applicant the installation allowance and to reimburse his                   subsistence allowance provided for by Article 10 ( 1 )
removal expenses — the Court of First Instance ( Second                     thereof.
Chamber ), composed of: H. Kirschner, President, and
C. W. Bellamy and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; B. Pastor,               2 . Orders the Commission to pay the applicant the
                                                                            installation allowance, the travel expenses incurred on
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 12 December 1996, in which it :                                 his taking up his appointment and the daily
                                                                            subsistence allowance, together with interest at 8%
1 . Dismisses the action as inadmissible, inasmuch as it
                                                                            per annum from the dates when those sums became
                                                                            respectively payable, in accordance with Annex VII to
     seeks payment of the daily subsistence allowance and
                                                                            the Staff Regulations.
     reimbursement of travel costs.
                                                                      3 . Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
2 . Annuls the Commission 's decision of IS September
     1994 inasmuch as it refuses to grant the applicant the           (') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
     installation allowance provided for by Article 5 (1 ) of
     Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and to reimburse


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 12 December 1996 in Case T-380/94: Association Internationale des Utilisateurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthétiques et de Soie Naturelle (AIUFFASS) v. Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment - State aid - Textiles - Trade association - Admissibility - Manifest error of assessment - Excess capacity)

text:
 8 . 2 . 97            1 hN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 40/ 19
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Action brought on 20 September 1996 by Mutual Aid
                                                                        Administration Services NV against Commission of the
                        of 12 December 1996
                                                                                European Communities
in       Case   T-3 80/94 :     Association  Internationale   des                               ( Case T-151 /96 )
Utilisateurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthétiques                                      ( 97/C 40/47 )
et de Soie Naturelle (AIUFFASS ) v. Commission of the
                    European Communities (')
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
 (Action for annulment — State aid — Textiles — Trade
association — Admissibility — Manifest error of
                  assessment — Excess capacity)                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                             ( 97/C 40/46 )                             Instance of the European Communities on 20 September
                                                                        1996 by Mutual Aid Administration Services NV, of
                                                                        Antwerp ( Belgium ), represented by J. Tritsmans, of the
                                                                        Antwerp Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                  (Language of the case: French)                        at the Chambers of R. Faltz, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
In       Case   T-380/94 :      Association  Internationale   des
Utilisateurs de Fils de Filaments Artificiels et Synthetiques
et de Soie Naturelle ( AIUFFASS ), established at Ghent                 — annul the contested decision, a copy of which is
( Belgium ) and Apparel, Knitting & Textiles Alliance                        included among the documents annexed to the present
( AKT ), established in London , represented by Michel                       application , and accordingly rule that the applicant is
Waelbroeck and Jules Stuyck, of the Brussels Bar, with an                    not obliged to pay dispatch costs to the Georgian
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                         authorities,
Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt v. Commission
of the European Communities, (Agents: initially Jean-Paul               — order the Commission of the European Communities
Keppenne and Ben Smulders, subsequently Xavier Lewis                        to pay to the applicant the sum of US $ 6 014,02, plus
and Ben Smulders ), supported by United Kingdom of                           interest calculated on the basis of the current statutory
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, ( Agents: Lindsey                        interest rate in Belgium of 7% per annum as from
Nicoll and, at the hearing, Richard Plender QC) — for                        1 September 1996 ,
annulment of the Commission decision of 31 May 1994 ,
reproduced in Commission Notice 94/C 271 /06 ,
authorizing the Government of the United Kingdom under                  — order the Commission to pay the costs of the
Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and ( c ) of the EC Treaty to grant aid of            proceedings.
£ 61 million in favour of Hualon Corporation for the
setting up of a textile producing plant in Northern Ireland
( OJ No C 271 , 29 . 9 . 1994, p. 5 ) — the Court of First              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcia
Valdecasas, President, K. Lenaerts , V. Tilli , J. Azizi and M.
Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio-Gonzalez, Administrator,                On 12 March 1996 , the Commission adopted Regulation
gave a judgment on 12 December 1996 , the operative part                ( EC ) No 449/96 on the transport for the free supply to
of which is as follows :                                                Armenia and Azerbaijan of fruit juice, fruit jams and
                                                                        common wheat flour.
                                                                        Transport of one of the consignments via Georgia was
1 . The application is dismissed.                                       awarded to the applicant by a Commission Decision of
                                                                        27 March 1996 . A ten-point annex was appended to the
                                                                        document awarding the contract, containing extracts from
                                                                        the Agreement between the European Community and the
2 . The applicants are ordered to bear their own costs and              Georgian authorities . Following delivery, the Commission
       jointly and severally to pay the Commission 's costs.            sent an invoice to the applicant relating, inter alia, to
                                                                        dispatch costs payable to the Georgian authorities . The
                                                                        applicant argues against this in that the dispatch rate is
                                                                        nowhere mentioned, not even in the document awarding
3 . The United Kingdom is ordered to bear its own costs .               the contract or in the memorandum concerning the above
                                                                        Agreement. The applicant accordingly submits that no
                                                                        dispatch costs need be paid to the Georgian authorities
(') OJ No C 380, 31 . 12 . 1994 .                                       and it contests the Commission decision requiring it to
                                                                        pay those costs .


title: Case C-378/15: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Roma — Italy) — Mercedes Benz Italia SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3 (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Value added tax — Directive 77/388/EEC — Article 17(5), third subparagraph, point (d) — Scope — Application of a deductible proportion to the value added tax charged on the acquisition of all goods and services used by a taxable person — Incidental transactions — Use of turnover as an indicator)

text:
               13.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/5

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 December 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale di Roma — Italy) — Mercedes Benz Italia SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3
   (Case C-378/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Value added tax - Directive 77/388/EEC - Article 17(5), third subparagraph, point (d) - Scope - Application of a deductible proportion to the value added tax charged on the acquisition of all goods and services used by a taxable person - Incidental transactions - Use of turnover as an indicator))
   (2017/C 046/06)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Commissione tributaria regionale di Roma

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mercedes Benz Italia SpA

      Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate Direzione Provinciale Roma 3

      Operative part of the judgment

   Point (d) of the third subparagraph of Article 17(5) and Article 19 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, must be interpreted as not precluding national rules and practice, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which require a taxable person:

               —

               to apply to all goods and services which he has acquired a deductible proportion based on turnover, without providing for a method of calculation which is based on the nature and actual destination of each of the goods and services acquired and which objectively reflects the portion of the expenditure actually to be attributed to each of the taxed and untaxed activities; and

               —

               to refer to the composition of his turnover in order to identify transactions which may be classified as ‘incidental’, in so far as the assessment carried out for that purpose also takes account of the relationship between those transactions and the taxable activities of that taxable person and, as the case may be, of the use which they entail of the goods and services which are subject to value added tax.

      (1)  OJ C 337, 12.10.2015.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 29 May 1997 in Case C-329/95: (reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling by the Länsrätten i Stockholms län): Administrative proceedings brought by VAG Sverige AB (Vehicle registration - National exhaust emission certificate - Compatibility with Directive 70/156/EEC)

text:
12 . 7 . 97              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 212/3
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                        ( Sixth Chamber)
                          of 29 May 1997                                                          of 29 May 1997
                                                                       in Case C-386/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-329/95 :            (reference to the Court for a
                                                                       the Bundesverwaltungsgericht ): Süleyman Eker v. Land
preliminary ruling by the Läsräten i Stockholms lan ):                                       Baden-Württemberg (')
  Administrative proceedings brought by VAG Sverige AB ( 1 )
                                                                       (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the
(Vehicle registration — National exhaust emission                      Association Council — Free movement of workers —
    certificate — Compatibility with Directive 70/156/EEC)             Renewal of residence permit after one year's legal
                                                                       employment — Employment with two employers in
                            ( 97IC 212/05 )                                                             succession)
                                                                                ( 97/C 212/06 )
                 (Language of the case: Swedish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
            published in the European Court Reports)                             published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case T-386/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
In Case C-329/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to                  Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Bundesverwaltungs
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Läsräten i Stock                  gericht ( Federal Administrative Court ) ( Germany ), for a
 holms lan ( Sweden ) for a preliminary ruling in the                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
 administrative proceedings brought before that court by                court between Süleyman Eker and Land Baden-Württem
VAG Sverige AB — on the interpretation of Council                       berg, joined to the proceedings : the Oberbundesanwalt
 Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the                         beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht and the Vertreter des
 approximation of the laws of the Member States relating                öfentlichen Interesses bei den Gerichten der allgemeinen
 to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers              Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit in Baden-Württemberg — on
 ( Official Journal, English Special Edition 1970 I, p. 96 )            the interpretation of the first indent of Article 6 ( 1 ) of
 and Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty — the Court                    Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the
 ( Fifth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Mointinho de                       development of the Association, adopted by the Council
 Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O.                of Association established by the Association Agreement
 Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ),              between the European Economic Community and Turkey
 Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein,                 — the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F.
 Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 29 May 1997, in                   Mancini, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, P. J. G.
 which it ruled :                                                       Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen ( Rapporteur ),
                                                                        Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
                                                                        Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        29 May 1997, in which it has ruled :
  Council Directive 70/156/EEC of 6 February 1970 on the
 approximation of the laws of the Member States relating
  to the type-approval of motor vehicles and their trailers,             The first indent of Article 6 (1 ) of Decision No 1 /80 of
 as amended by Council Directive 92/53/EEC of 18 June                    19 September 1980 on the development of the Association
  1992, must be interpreted as precluding national                      adopted by the Council of Association established by the
  legislation under which motor vehicles covered by a valid             Association Agreement between the European Economic
  Community type-approval certificate cannot be registered               Community and Turkey must be interpreted as making the
  unless a national certificate is produced attesting to their           extension of a Turkish worker's residence permit in the
  conformity with national requirements concerning exhaust               host Member State subject to his having been legally
  emissions .                                                            employed continuously for one year with the same
                                                                         employer.
   (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Case C-34/11: Action brought on 21 January 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/15

         Action brought on 21 January 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-34/11)
   2011/C 103/26
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Guerra e Andrade and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to ensure that the concentrations of PM10 in ambient air do not exceed the limit values required under Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe, (1) the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC.

               —

               Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In view of the objections raised by the Commission in its decision of 26 November 2009, and in the light of the reports submitted by Portugal, which show that the PM10 limit values continue to be exceeded in various zones and agglomerations and indicate in some cases a trend towards the long-term exceedance of the limits, the Commission takes the view that for the agglomerations and zones of Braga, Porto literal, Área Metropolitana de Lisboa Norte and Área Metropolitana de Lisboa Sul the Portuguese State has failed to fulfil the requirements of Article 13 of Directive 2008/50/EC.

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 152, p. 1.


title: Case C-591/14: Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/16

      Action brought on 19 December 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
      (Case C-591/14)
      (2015/C 073/22)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: European Commission (represented by: J.-F. Brakeland and B. Stromsky, Acting as agents, acting as Agents)

         Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

         Form of order sought

      The applicant claims that the Court should:

                  —

                  declare that by failing, within the period prescribed, to take all the necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the aid declared to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market by Article 1(3) and (4) of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU of 27 July 2011, concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by Belgium (1), and by failing to inform the Commission, within the prescribed period, of the measures taken to comply with that decision, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to comply with its obligations under the fourth paragraph of Article 288 TFEU and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Commission Decision 2011/678/EU.

                  —

                  order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      By Commission Decision 2011/678/EU concerning the State aid for financing screening of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) in bovine animals implemented by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Commission declared aid granted by Belgium to be illegal and incompatible with the internal market.
      The period prescribed by the decision for the recovery of the aid declared to be illegal expired on 28 November 2011, without the complete recovery of those aids having taken place.
      At the date on which the present action was lodged, the defendant had still not adopted the necessary measures to recover the aid granted to the beneficiary companies, nor communicated to the Commission all the information requested.

         (1)  OJ L 2011 274, p. 36.


title: Case C-393/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2016 — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd

text:
               31.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 402/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 14 July 2016 — Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne v Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd
   (Case C-393/16)
   (2016/C 402/18)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne

      Defendant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG Süd

      Intervener: Galana NV

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (1) and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 (2) to be interpreted as meaning that their scope also covers a case in which the protected designation of origin is used as part of the designation of a foodstuff which does not correspond to the product specifications but to which an ingredient has been added which does correspond to the product specifications?

               2.

               If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
               Are Article 118m(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 103(2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin as part of the designation of a foodstuff which does not correspond to the product specifications but to which an ingredient has been added which does correspond to the product specifications constitutes exploitation of the reputation of the designation of origin in the case where the designation of the foodstuff corresponds to the customary designations on the market in question and the ingredient is added in a quantity which is sufficient to give the product one of its essential characteristics?

               3.

               Are Article 118m(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 103(2)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that the use of a protected designation of origin in the circumstances set out in Question 2 constitutes misuse, imitation or evocation?

               4.

               Are Article 118m(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 and Article 103(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 to be interpreted as meaning that they are applicable only to false or misleading indications which, on the market in question, are liable to create a false impression as to a product’s geographical origin?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation); OJ 2007 L 299, p. 1.

      (2)  Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007; OJ 2013 L 347, p. 671.


title: Case T-817/16: Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Vans v EUIPO — Deichmann (V)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/49

         Action brought on 21 November 2016 — Vans v EUIPO — Deichmann (V)
   (Case T-817/16)
   (2017/C 022/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Vans, Inc. (Wilmington, Delaware, United States) (represented by: M. Hirsch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Deichmann SE (Essen, Germany)

      Details of the procedure before EUIPO

      Party applying for the mark: Applicant

      Mark at issue: EU figurative mark (Representation of a ‘V’) — Application No 10 263 978

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 in Case R 2030/2015-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               amend the contested decision by rejecting the opposition in its entirety;

               —

               in the alternative, amend the contested decision by declaring that the opposition is also rejected for the goods ‘Goods made of leather or imitations of leather; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas; parasols and walking sticks; wallets; bags and pouches; rucksacks; belt bags; briefcases; school satchels; school satchels for sport; beach bags; keyrings; hip bags; card cases’ in Class 18 and ‘Clothing, footwear, headgear; belts; gloves’ in Class 25;

               —

               in the further alternative, annul the contested decision;

               —

               order EUIPO to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law

               —

               infringement of Rule 19(2) and (3) and Rule 20(1) of Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               infringement of the first sentence of Article 60, Article 63(2) and the first sentence of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of the principle of reformatio in peius as well as of the right to be heard.


4. 3 . 95        [_EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                         No C 54/1
                                                                   I
                                                            (Information)
                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
                   Swearing of the oath by the new members of the Court of Justice of the European
                                                            Communities
                                                             ( 95/C 54/01 )
          The following have been appointed judges of the Court of Justice of the European Communities by
          decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 1 January 1995 ( l ) and
          have taken the oath before the Court of Justice on 1 8 January 1995 : Leif Sevón, Peter Jann and Hans
          Ragnemalm.
          The following have been appointed Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European
          Communities by decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of 1 and
          18 January 1995 (2) and have taken the oath before the Court of Justice on 18 January 1995 :
          Dàmaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer and Nial Fennelly.
                Swearing of the oath by the new members of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                            Communities
                                                             ( 95/C 54/02 )
          The following have been appointed judges of the Court of First Instance of the European
          Communities by decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of
          1 January 1995 (3) and have taken the oath before the Court of Justice on 18 January 1995 : Pernilla
          Lindh, Virpi Tiili and Josef Azizi.
          (!) OJ No L 1 , 1 . 1 . 1995 , p . 223 .
          (2 ) OJ No L 17, 25 . 1 . 1995 , p. 14 .
          ( 3 ) OJ No L 1 , 1 . 1 . 1995 , p. 224 .


title: Case T-281/16 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2016 — Solelec and Others v Parliament (Interim measures — Public works contracts — Tendering procedure — Electrical work (high-voltage current) as part of the project for the extension and refurbishment of the Parliament’s Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg — Rejection of the bid submitted by a tenderer and decision to award the contract to another tenderer — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/38

         Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2016 — Solelec and Others v Parliament

   (Case T-281/16 R)
   ((Interim measures - Public works contracts - Tendering procedure - Electrical work (high-voltage current) as part of the project for the extension and refurbishment of the Parliament’s Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg - Rejection of the bid submitted by a tenderer and decision to award the contract to another tenderer - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))
   (2017/C 006/48)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Solelec SA (Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg), Mannelli & Associés SA (Bertrange), Paul Wagner et fils SA (Luxembourg), Socom SA (Foetz) (represented by: S. Marx, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: M. Mraz and L. Chrétien, agents)

      Re:

   Action on the basis of Articles 278 TFEU and 279 TFEU seeking suspension of the operation, first, of the decision of the Parliament of 27 May 2016 to reject the tender submitted by the applicants for lot No 75 in connection with a call for tenders with reference INLO-D-UPIL-T-15-AO6, concerning the project for the extension and refurbishment of the Konrad Adenauer building in Luxembourg and, secondly, of the decision awarding that lot to another tenderer.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of 9 June 2016 delivered in Case T-281/16 R is set aside.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court of 1 February 2016 in Case E-20/15 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2013/10/EU amending Directive 75/324/EEC on aerosol dispensers)

text:
               19.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 18/26

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 1 February 2016
   in Case E-20/15
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland
   (Failure by an EEA/EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Directive 2013/10/EU amending Directive 75/324/EEC on aerosol dispensers)
   (2017/C 18/10)
   In Case E-20/15, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2013/10/EU of 19 March 2013 amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Páll Hreinsson, Judges, gave judgment on 1 February 2016, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act referred to at point 1 of Chapter VIII of Annex II to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Commission Directive 2013/10/EU of 19 March 2013 amending Council Directive 75/324/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to aerosol dispensers in order to adapt its labelling provisions to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures) as adapted to the Agreement under its Protocol 1, and under Article 7 of the Agreement, by failing to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Act within the time prescribed.

               2.

               Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-485/11: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/20/EC — Article 12 — Administrative charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — National legislation — Electronic telecommunications operators — Requirement to pay an additional charge)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/9

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 June 2013 — European Commission v French Republic
   (Case C-485/11) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/20/EC - Article 12 - Administrative charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations - National legislation - Electronic telecommunications operators - Requirement to pay an additional charge)
   2013/C 225/14
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and G. Braun, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of France (represented by: G. de Bergues and J.-S. Pilczer, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, Agent), Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó, K. Molnár and A. Szilágyi, Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 12 of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21) — Charges applicable to undertakings holding general authorisations — Compatibility of national legislation introducing an additional charge on electronic telecommunications operators

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain and Hungary to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355, 3.12.2011.


title: Case T-355/14: Action brought on 30 May 2014  — STC v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/64

         Action brought on 30 May 2014 — STC v Commission
   (Case T-355/14)
   (2014/C 223/66)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: STC SpA (Forlì, Italy) (represented by: A. Marelli and G. Delucca, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decisions, with all legal consequences, and, in particular, in that connection:

               —

               order the Contracting Authority to provide compensation for the damage caused by the unlawful decisions taken, either in the specific form requested — that is, reappraisal in favour of the applicant — or in the form of any other equivalent action and, in the latter case, to pay compensation for loss of business profits and for ‘curricular’ damage amounting to 15 % of the price indicated in the applicant’s tender or — in the alternative — 15 % of the value of the contract, or otherwise — as appropriate — a larger or smaller sum considered to be equitable, with the addition, in any event, of compensatory interest in respect of damage caused by delay, and, in addition:

               —

               order the Commission to pay all procedural costs, including incidental and sundry expenses and any other statutory costs, subject to quantification.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against (i) the decision of the Maintenance and Utilities Unit of the Ispra Site Management Directorate of the Joint Research Centre Directorate-General of the European Commission, communicated by way of Note Ares(2014)1041060 of 3 April 2014, to give a negative assessment in respect of the tender submitted by the applicant in Tendering Procedure JRC IPR 2013 C04 0031 OC, (ii) the decision to award the contract to another company, and (iii) the decision to refuse the applicant’s request for access to the tender documents.
   The contract in question was for the executive design, supply of equipment and construction of a new turbo-gas tri-generation plant, with ordinary and extraordinary maintenance scheduled for a period of six years, the first two years being under guarantee.
   In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a failure to acknowledge the applicant’s right to access tender documents. In this regard, the applicant alleges infringement of:

                           —

                           Articles 42 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                           —

                           the right to access tender documents, given the lack of access to (i) the ranking list for the tendering procedure, (ii) the scores obtained by the other candidates, and (iii) the full text of the report on the assessment of the applicant; and

                           —

                           the rights of the defence and the right to an effective remedy.

               2.

               Second plea in law, concerning the financial tender submitted by the applicant. In this regard, the applicant alleges:

                           —

                           infringement of Article 296 TFEU, owing to a contradictory and inadequate statement of reasons;

                           —

                           infringement of the right to good administration as described in Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                           —

                           infringement of Article 112(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1);

                           —

                           infringement of Article 160(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1); and

                           —

                           failure to observe the principles of equal treatment and transparency at the stage of assessing the tenders with a view to awarding the contract, and failure to ensure that all tenderers had an equal chance.

               3.

               Third plea in law, concerning the technical tender submitted by the applicant. In this regard, the applicant alleges:

                           —

                           infringement of Article 296 TFEU, owing to a contradictory and inadequate statement of reasons;

                           —

                           infringement of the right to good administration as described in Article 41(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union;

                           —

                           infringement of Article 112(1) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (OJ 2012 L 298, p. 1);

                           —

                           infringement of Articles 139(1) and 160(3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union (OJ 2012 L 362, p. 1); and

                           —

                           failure to observe the principle of transparency, and infringement of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

         The applicant also claims that the documentary findings have been distorted.


title: Case C-479/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 8 December 1999 in the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG against Hauptzollamt Aachen

text:
4.3.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 63/13
The Commission considers that the list in the annex to                  Appeal brought on 20 December 1999 by Gerry Plant
Directive 93/13 is designed to establish a functioning internal         and 16 others against the order made on 29 September
market and to improve consumer protection, based inter alia             1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
on information for consumers. This is to be achieved by                 Instance of the European Communities in joined cases
amplifying and specifying the general criteria indicated in             T-148/98 between J.G. Evans and others and the Com-
Article 3(1) of the Directive. This increases legal certainty for       mission of the European Communities and T-162/98
both Swedish and foreign economic agents and consumers                  between South Wales Small Mines Association and the
whilst at the same time the various authorities apply the law                    Commission of the European Communities
in a more uniform way. The Commission also believes that the
list is of invaluable assistance for traders when they draw up
their standard terms and conditions and that the number of                                      (Case C-480/99 P)
possible disputes can be reduced in this way. In the Com-
mission’s view, these aims, and the particular argument                                            (2000/C 63/26)
concerning clarity and information, can only be achieved if
the list in the annex to the Directive is made generally known
by being published as a part of the legal act by which the              An appeal against the order made on 29 September by the
directive is implemented.                                               Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities in joined cases T-148/98 (1) between J.G. Evans
                                                                        and others and the Commission of the European Communities
(1) OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.                                                and T-162/ 98 (2) between South Wales Small Mines Associ-
                                                                        ation and the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                        Communities on 20 December 1999 by Gerry Plant and
                                                                        16 others, established in the United Kingdom, represented by
                                                                        Barbara Hewson, of the Bar of England and Wales, and Thomas
                                                                        Graham, Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                 at the Chambers of Nathan & Noesen, 18, rue des Glacis.
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 8 December 1999 in
the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG against Haupt-
                         zollamt Aachen                                 The Appellants claim:
                         (Case C-479/99)                                1. that the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                            29 September 1999 be set aside;
                          (2000/C 63/25)
                                                                        2. that the Application to annul is admissible and that the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      Court of First Instance should deal with the substance of
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-                  the Application;
dorf (Düsseldorf Finance Court) of 8 December 1999, received
at the Court Registry on 16 December 1999, for a preliminary
                                                                        3. alternatively, that the issue of admissibility should be
ruling in the case of Vobis Microcomputer AG against
                                                                            referred back to a freshly constituted Court of First
Hauptzollamt Aachen on the following questions:
                                                                            Instance, and that the Appellants should first have the
1.      Is the Combined Nomenclature, as amended by Annex I                 opportunity to have knowledge of, and to comment on,
to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1153/97 of 24 June                         all evidence adduced or observations filed by SWSMA;
1997 (1) amending Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on            4. that the Commission pay the costs of this appeal and the
the Common Customs Tariff, to be interpreted as meaning that                application below.
electronic assemblies which enable automatic data-processing
equipment and units thereof to process audio signals (sound
cards) must be classified under heading 8471, 8473 or 8543?
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
2.      Are Commission Regulation (EC) No 1153/97 of 24 June
1997 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of
4 November 1997 (2) amending Annex I to Council Regulation              The Appellants bring this appeal against the contested order
(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature             on the basis of a breach of the procedure before the Court of
and on the Common Customs Tariff valid in so far as, in                 First Instance which adversely affects the interest of the
accordance with them, the sound cards described at 1 are                Appellants and/or infringements of Community law by the
covered by heading 8543 of the Combined Nomenclature?                   Court of First Instance, in particular:
                                                                        1. The Court of First Instance failed to apply the relevant law
(1) OJ 1997 L 168, p. 35.
(2) OJ 1997 L 312, p. 1.
                                                                            in that it failed to find that the Appellants were concerned
                                                                            by the Commission’s decision under Article 33 ECSC and
                                                                            were entitled to notification of the Decision as persons
                                                                            concerned by the Decision under Article 15 ECSC;


title: Case C-144/05: Action brought on 30 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               11.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/24

         Action brought on 30 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-144/05)
   (2005/C 143/35)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils, of its Legal Service.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that by not taking all necessary legal and administrative measures 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, or by not notifying the Commission of such measures, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

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

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 208, p. 10


title: Case C-659/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 27 December 2011 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/21

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 27 December 2011 — TVI Televisão Independente SA v Fazenda Pública
   (Case C-659/11)
   2012/C 49/35
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: TVI Televisão Independente SA

      Defendant: Fazenda Pública

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 16(1) of the CIVA [VAT Code], as interpreted in the judgment under appeal (to the effect that the commercial advertising screening tax is inherent in the supply of advertising services, so that it should be included in the taxable amount of the supply of services for the purposes of VAT), compatible with Article 11(A)(1)(a) of Directive 77/388/EC (1) (now Article 73 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (2) of 28 November 2006) and, in particular, with the concept of ‘consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier … for such supplies’?

               2.

               Is Article 16(6)(c) of the CIVA, as interpreted in the judgment under appeal (to the effect that the commercial advertising screening tax does not constitute an amount paid in the name and on behalf of the customer of the services, even though it is accounted for in third party suspense accounts and is intended to be paid to public bodies, so that it is not excluded from the taxable amount for the purposes of VAT) compatible with Article 11(A)(3)(c) of Directive 77/388/EC (now Article 79(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006) and, in particular, with the concept of ‘amounts received by a taxable person from his purchaser or customer as repayment for expenses paid out in the name and for the account of the latter and which are entered in his books in a suspense account’?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization 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.

      (2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

      OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.