title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 8 June 1995 in Case T-496/93: Alain-Pierre Allo v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Appointment - Appointing authority's power of assessment - Interests of the service - Statement of reasons - Absence of staff report - Effect on procedure - Procedure for filling middle management posts - right to a fair hearing)

text:
22 . 7. 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 189/15
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              — Distribution of railway tickets by travel agents ) ( ) — the
                       of 30 May 1995                                Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, extended
                                                                     composition ), composed of J. Biancarelli, President, R.
    in Case T-289/94 : Angelo Innamorati v. European                 Schintgen, C. P. Briët, R. Garria-Valdecasas and C. W.
                         Parliament { l )                            Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
(Officiais — Competition — Rejection of application —                6 June 1995 , in which it:
Statement ofreasons for a decision of the selection board in
                    an open competition)                             1 , annuls Commission Decision 92/S68/EEC of
                         ( 95/C 189/30 )                                   25 November 1992 relating to a proceeding under
                                                                           Article 85 ofthe EEC Treaty (IV/33.585 — Distribution
               (Language of the case: French)                              of railway tickets by travel agents);
In Case T-289/94 : Angelo Innamorati , a member of the               2 , orders the Commission to pay the costs.
auxiliary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities and a candidate in open competition PE/59/A,             ( ] ) OJ No C 71 , 13 . 3 . 1993 .
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, of the         ( 2 ) OJ No L 366 , 15 . 12 . 1992 , p . 47.
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener v.
European Parliament ( Agents : Gregorio Garzôn Clariana,
Manfred Peter and José Luis Rufas Quintana ) —
application for the annulment of the decision of the selection
board in open competition PE/59/A to award the applicant,             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
for the drafting test, a mark below the minimum required                                         of 8 June 1995
and not to admit him to the other tests in the competition —         in Case T-496/93 : Alain-Pierrè Allo v. Commission of the .
the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ), composed of:                              European Communities ( l )
J. Biancarelli, President, and C. W. Bellamy and J. Azizi,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 May           (Officials — Appointment — Appointing authority's power
                                                                     of assessment — Interests of the service — Statement of
1995 , in which it:
                                                                     reasons — Absence ofstaffreport — Effect on procedure —
                                                                     Procedure for filling middle management posts — right to a
1 , annuls the decision of the selection board in open                                              fair hearing)
     competition PE/59/A awarding the applicant a mark
     below the minimum required and refusing to admit him                                         ( 95/C 189/32 )
     to the other tests in the competition;
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
2 , orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                     In Case T-496/93 : Alain-Pierre Alio, an official of the
(') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                   Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                     Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,
                                                                     with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
                                                                     of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim v . Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities ( Agents : Gianluigi Valsesia
                                                                     and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for the
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             annulment of decisions appointing Mrs X as head of the
                        of 6 June 1995                               Commission's delegation in Romania and rejecting the
                                                                     applicant's application for that post and , second, for
in Case T-14/93 : Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer
                                                                     compensation for the material and non-material loss
      v. Commission of the European Communities (')                  suffered by the applicant as a result of those decisions and by
(Competition — Transport by rail — Legal basis for a                 reason of the absence from his personnel file of his staff
decision — Regulation (EEC) No 1 01 7/68 — Travel agents             report for the period 1989 to 1991 at the time when the
               — Sale of international tickets)                      applications for the post in question were considered — the
                         ( 95/C 189/31 )                             Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed of B.
                                                                     Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M. Barrington and A.
                                                                     Saggio, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the
               (Language of the case: French)                        Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 June 1995 , in which
                                                                     it:
In Case T-14/93 : Union Internationale de Chemins de Fer,
having its head office in Paris, represented by Chantai              1 , dismisses the action;
Momège, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31
Grand-Rue, against the Commission of the European                    2 , orders the parties to pay their own costs.
Communities ( Agents : Bernd Langeheine and Géraud de
Bergues ) — application for the annulment of Commission              f 1 ) OJ No C 272 , 8 . 10 . 1993 .
Decision 92/568/EEC of 25 November 1992 relating to a
proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty ( IV/33.585


title: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  1 December 2005  in Case C-116/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Nancy in Etablissements Dhumeaux et Cie SA, Société d'études et de commerce (SEC) v ALVBV SA, ALBV SA v Tragex Gel SA, Agence fédérale pour la sécurité de la chaîne alimentaire (AFSCA), formerly Institut d'expertise vétérinaire (IEV), ALBV SA v CIGMA International SA and ALBV SA v Jean Max Gustin in his capacity as administrator of Tragex Gel SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/14

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 1 December 2005
   in Case C-116/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de commerce de Nancy in Etablissements Dhumeaux et Cie SA, Société d'études et de commerce (SEC) v ALVBV SA, ALBV SA v Tragex Gel SA, Agence fédérale pour la sécurité de la chaîne alimentaire (AFSCA), formerly Institut d'expertise vétérinaire (IEV), ALBV SA v CIGMA International SA and ALBV SA v Jean Max Gustin in his capacity as administrator of Tragex Gel SA (1)

   (Reference for a preliminary ruling - Inadmissibility)
   (2006/C 60/29)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-116/05: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal de commerce de Nancy (France), made by decision of 14 February 2005, received at the Court on 10 March 2005, in the proceedings between Etablissements Dhumeaux et Cie SA, Société d'études et de commerce (SEC) and ALVBV SA, between ALBV SA and Tragex Gel SA, Agence fédérale pour la sécurité de la chaîne alimentaire (AFSCA), formerly Institut d'expertise vétérinaire (IEV), between ALBV SA and CIGMA International SA and between ALBV SA and Jean Max Gustin in his capacity as administrator of Tragex Gel SA, the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 1 December 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Tribunal de commerce de Nancy by decision of 14 February 2005 is manifestly inadmissible.

      (1)  OJ C 115 of 14.05.2005.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 28 March 1996 in Case C-270/95 P: Christina Kik v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain (Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark - Languages - Actions for annulment of measures - Natural and legal persons - Acts of direct and individual concern to them - Appeal manifestly unfounded)

text:
No C 180/ 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 6 . 96
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                   Lisboa ( Lisbon Local Civil Court) for a preliminary ruling in
                         ( First Chamber )                            the proceedings pending before that court between Banco de
                                                                      Fomento e Exterior SA and Amândio Mauricio Martins
                       of 28 March 1996                               Pechim, Maria da Luz Lima Barros Raposo Pechim,
in Case C-270/95 P: Christina Kik v . Council of the                  Confecçoes Têxteis de Vouzela Ld .a ( CTV ) — on the
European Union and Commission of the European                         interpretation of Articles 59 , 90 and 92 of the EC Treaty —
   Communities , supported by the Kingdom of Spain ( ! )              the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President,
(Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark                 C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and
— Languages — Actions for annulment of measures —                     G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini,
Natural and legal persons — Acts of direct and individual             F. A. Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida
    concern to them — Appeal manifestly unfounded)                    ( Rapporteur ), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray,
                                                                      P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges;
                           ( 96/C 180/36 )                            Advocate-General , D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; Registrar,
                                                                      R. Grass, made an order on 13 March 1996 , the operative
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                         part of which is as follows :
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                     The request for a preliminary ruling submitted by the
                                                                      Tribunal Civel da Comarca de Lisboa is inadmissible.
In Case C-270/95 P: Christina Kik, represented by Goosen
L. Kooy — appeal against the order of the Court of First              (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
Instance of the European Communities ( First Chamber ) of
 19 June 1995 in Case T-107/94 Kik v. Council and
Commission [1 995 ] ECR 11-1717, seeking to have that
order set aside, the other parties to the proceedings being the
Council of the European Union ( Agents: Giorgio Maganza
and Guus Houttuin ) and the Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Pieter Van Nuffel ), supported by the
Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto José Navarro Gonzalez
and Gloria Calvo Diaz ) — the Court ( First Chamber ),                                   ORDER OF THE COURT
composed of D. A. O. Edward , President of the Chamber, P.                                     of 20 March 1996
Jann ( Rapporteur ) and L. Sevón, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on               in Case C-2/96: Criminal proceedings against Carlo Sunino
28 March 1 996 , the operative part of which is as                                         and Giancarlo Data ( 1 )
follows :                                                             (Interpretation ofArticles 48, 55, 59, 60, 66, 86 and 90 of
                                                                                the EC Treaty)
1 . The appeal is dismissed.                                                                      ( 96/C 180/38 )
2 . The appellant is ordered to pay her own costs and the
    costs of the Council and the Commission . The                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
    intervener is ordered to bear its own costs .
(') O ] No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                              published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      In Case C-2/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                      the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale di Ivrea ,
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                   Sezione di Strambino ( Ivrea District Magistrate's Court,
                       of 13 March 1996                               Strambino Division ) ( Italy ), for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      criminal proceedings pending before that court against
in Case C-326/95 : Banco de Fomento e Exterior SA v .
                                                                      Carlo Sunino and Giancarlo Data — on the interpretation of
    Amândio Maurício Martins Pechim and Others (')                    Articles 48 , 55 , 59 , 60, 66 , 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty with
             (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissible)                      regard to national legislation which precludes private
                           ( 96/C 180/37 )                            undertakings from pursuing the activity of intermediary in
                                                                      the temporary employment market — the Court, composed
                                                                      of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris ,
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                       D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents
                                                                      of Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ),
         published in the European Court Reports)                     C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón
                                                                      and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate-General, M. B. Elmer;
In Case C-326/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177           Registrar, R. Grass, made an order on 20 March 1996 , the
of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal Cível da Comarca de                operative part of which is as follows :


title: Case C-237/09: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium)) — Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 13(A)(1)(d) — Exemptions for activities in the public interest — Supply of human organs, blood and milk — Activity of transporting, in a self-employed capacity, human organs and samples for hospitals and laboratories — Concepts of ‘supply of goods’ and ‘supply of services’ — Distinguishing criteria)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium)) — Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier
   (Case C-237/09) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 13(A)(1)(d) - Exemptions for activities in the public interest - Supply of human organs, blood and milk - Activity of transporting, in a self-employed capacity, human organs and samples for hospitals and laboratories - Concepts of ‘supply of goods’ and ‘supply of services’ - Distinguishing criteria)
   2010/C 209/13
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour de cassation

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Belgian State

      Defendant: Nathalie De Fruytier

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation (Belgium) — Interpretation of Article 13(A)(1)(d) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemptions for activities in the public interest — Supply of human organs, blood and milk — Possibility of treating the activity of transporting, in a self-employed capacity, human organs and samples for hospitals and laboratories as a supply.

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 13(A)(1)(d) 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, exempting ‘supplies of human organs, blood and milk’ from value added tax, must be interpreted as not applying to the activity of transporting, in a self-employed capacity, human organs and samples for hospitals and laboratories.

      (1)  OJ C 220, 12.9.2009.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 10 July 1997 in Case T-38/96: Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Action for failure to act - No need for a ruling - Action for damages - Inadmissibility)

text:
16 . 8 . 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 252/29
annulment of the Commission 's decision of 4 October                    annual leave — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth
1995 rejecting the requests made by the applicants,                     Chamber), composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, acting as
following the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined                President of the Chamber, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges;
Cases C-89/85 , C-104/85 , C-l 14/85 , C-l 16/85 , C-l 17/85            A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
and C-125/85 to C-129/85 Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and                        judgment on 10 July 1997, in which it:
Others v. Commission [ 1993 ] ECR 1-1307, for repayment
of the fines imposed on them by Commission Decision 85/                 1 . annuls the decision of the Parliament of 22 May, in
202/EEC of 19 December 1984 relating to a proceeding                          which it considered the applicant's absence on 5 May
under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/29.725 — Wood                          1 995 to be unauthorized and deducted a day from her
pulp ) ( OJ No L 85 , 26 . 3 . 1985 , p. 1 ) — the Court of                   annual leave, and the decision of 9 August 1995
First Instance ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ),                      confirming that decision;
composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. W. Bellamy and
A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 10 July 1997, in which it:                                  2 . orders the Parliament to pay the costs.
                                                                        H OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
1 . annuls the Commission 's decision, contained in the
      letter of 4 October 1995, rejecting the applicant's
      request that it review, in the light of the judgment of
      the Court of First Instance in Joined Cases C-89/85,
      C-104/85, C-l 14/85, C-l 16/85, C-117/85 and C-125/
      85 to C-129/85 Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and Others v.
      Commission [1993] ECR 1-1307, the legality of                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
      Commission Decision 85/202/EEC of 19 December                                              of 10 July 1997
      1984, relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the
                                                                        in Case T-38/96: Guérin Automobiles v. Commission of
      EEC Treaty (IV/29. 725 — Wood pulp) in so far as the
      latter relates to them;                                                             the European Communities H
                                                                         (Competition — Action for failure to act — No need for a
2 . dismisses the action as inadmisible in so far as it seeks                   ruling — Action for damages — Inadmissibility)
      the issue of directions to the Commission;                                                   ( 97/C 252/64 )
 3 . orders the Commission to pay the costs.                                              (Language of the case: French)
 (') OJ No C 64, 2 . 3 . 1996 .                                          In Case T-38/96 : Guérin Automobiles, with its registered
                                                                         office at Alençon ( France ), represented by Jean Claude
                                                                         Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar and of the Brussels Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue Beatrix de Bourbon, against
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                         initially Francisco Enrique Gonzalez Diaz and Guy
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Charrier, subsequently Giuliano Marenco and Guy
                           of 10 July 1997                               Charrier) — application for ( i ) a declaration that the
                                                                         Commission failed to act, by not addressing a statement of
         in Case T-36/96: Giuliana Gaspari v. European                   objections to Nissan France and ( ii ) compensation for the
                            Parliament (')
                                                                         damage caused to the applicant by that failure to act —
 (Officials — Sick leave — Medical certificate — Medical                 the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber, Extended
 examination to verify — Conclusions contradicting the                   Composition ), composed of: C. W. Bellamy, President,
                         medical certificate)                            C. P. Briët and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; A. Mair,
                                                                         Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                            ( 97/C 252/63 )                               10 July 1997, in which it:
                   (Language of the case: French)                         1 . declares that there is no need to rule on the action for
                                                                               failure to act;
 In Case T-36/96 : Giuliana Gaspari, an official of the
 European         Parliament,       residing    at      Sandweiler       2 . dismisses      the remainder of the application as
  ( Luxembourg), represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry                       inadmissible;
 Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, all of the Brussels Bar, with
  an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
  Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de Cessange, against the
                                                                          3 . orders the Commission to pay its own costs and half
                                                                               of the applicant's costs.
  European Parliament ( Agents : Manfred Peter and Antonio
  Caiola ) — application for the annulment of the decisions
  of 22 May 1995 and 9 August 1995 , whereby the                          H OJ No C 145 , 18 . 5 . 1996 .
  Parliament considered the applicant's absence on 5 May
  1995 to be unauthorized and deducted a day from her


title: Case C-223/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2015 — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/17

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 18 May 2015 — combit Software GmbH v Commit Business Solutions Ltd
   (Case C-223/15)
   (2015/C 294/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: combit Software GmbH

      Defendant: Commit Business Solutions Ltd

      Question referred
       (1)

   In determining the likelihood of confusion of a Community word mark, what is the significance of a situation in which, from the perspective of the average consumer in some Member States, the aural similarity of the Community trade mark with another sign claimed to infringe that trade mark is eliminated by a difference in meaning, whereas from the perspective of the average consumer in other Member States it is not:

               (a)

               In determining the likelihood of confusion is the perspective of some Member States, of the other Member States, or that of a fictive EU average consumer decisive?

               (b)

               If there is a likelihood of confusion only in some Member States, has the Community trade mark been infringed across the European Union, or must the Member States be differentiated individually?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (codified version) (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).


title: Case T-470/16: Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2017 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO (Representation of a triangle) (EU trade mark — Application for an EU figurative mark representing a triangle — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/43

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 June 2017 — X-cen-tek v EUIPO (Representation of a triangle)
   (Case T-470/16) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a triangle - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 277/64)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG (Wardenburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hillers, lawyer)

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

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 17 June 2016 (Case R 2565/2015-4), concerning an application for registration of a figurative sign representing a triangle as an EU trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders X-cen-tek GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 383, 17.10.2016.


title: Case F-126/07: Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Van Beers v Commission

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/57

         Action brought on 30 October 2007 — Van Beers v Commission
   (Case F-126/07)
   (2008/C 22/110)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Isabelle Van Beers (Woluwe-St-Etienne, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the appointing authority rejecting the applicant's application under the attestation procedure for 2006;

               —

               Declare Article 4(2) of the general implementing provisions (GIP) of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations unlawful, inasmuch as it has the effect either of excluding from consideration the true level of the tasks carried out by a candidate for attestation or of maintaining a distinction between the former grades C* and B* since 30 April 2006;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, a Commission official in grade AST 6, lodged an application under the attestation procedure for 2006. On 29 March 2007, the appointing authority definitively confirmed its decision of 22 February 2007, after an appeal by the applicant against that decision, not to admit her application under the attestation procedure for 2006.
   In support of her action, the applicant claims, firstly, that there has been a manifest error of assessment.
   She submits, furthermore, that Article 4(2) of the GIP of Article 45a of the Staff Regulations is unlawful.
   In particular, the applicant alleges breach of the principles of equal treatment, of non-discrimination and of proportionality, breach of the principle of sound administration and the principle that recruited officials are entitled to reasonable career prospects, as well as the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.


title: Case T-228/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2008 — Malheiro v Commission

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/30

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2008 — Malheiro v Commission
   (Case T-228/07) (1)

   (2008/C 183/59)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 24, 8.9.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 December 2000 in Case C-395/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directives 96/51/EC and 96/93/EC — Failure to transpose directives within the prescribed periods)

text:
C 118/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          21.4.2001
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (First Chamber)                                                            (Third Chamber)
                       of 7 December 2000                                                          of 7 December 2000
in Case C-395/99: Commission of the European Communi-                      in Case C-423/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                     ties v Italian Republic (1)                                                 ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                     (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
Directives 96/51/EC and 96/93/EC — Failure to transpose                                    to transpose Directive 98/10/EC)
            directives within the prescribed periods)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/07)
                          (2001/C 118/06)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                         in the European Court Reports)
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                           In Case C-423/99: Commission of the European Communities
In Case C-395/99: Commission of the European Communities                   (Agents: C. Schmidt and G. Bisogni) v Italian Republic (Agents:
(Agent: F.P. Ruggeri Laderchi) v Italian Republic (Agents:                 U. Leanza and I.M. Braguglia) — application for a declaration
U. Leanza, assisted by P.G. Ferri) — application for a declar-             that, by not adopting or, in any event, by not communicating
ation that, by not adopting or, in any event, not communicat-              to the Commission the laws, regulations and administrative
ing the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necess-            provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/10/EC of
ary to comply with Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July                   the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February
1996 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in                 1998 on the application of open network provision (ONP) to
feedingstuffs (OJ 1996 L 235, p. 39) and with Council                      voice telephony and on universal service for telecommuni-
Directive 96/93/EC of 17 December 1996 on the certification                cations in a competitive environment (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 24),
of animals and animal products (OJ 1997 L 13, p. 28), the                  the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC         that directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
Treaty and those directives — the Court (First Chamber),                   C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann                J.-P Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
(Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;            General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 Decem-
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 December                    ber 2000, in which it:
2000, in which it:
1.    Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed periods the     1.    Declares that, by not adopting, within the time-limit laid down,
      laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to               the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
      comply with the provisions referred to in Article 2(1)(a) of               comply with Directive 98/10/EC of the European Parliament
      Council Directive 96/51/EC of 23 July 1996 amending                        and of the Council of 26 February 1998 on the application of
      Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs,                open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on
      and with the provisions of Council Directive 96/93/EC of                   universal service for telecommunications in a competitive
      17 December 1996 on the certification of animals and animal                environment, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
      products, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations        obligations under that directive;
      under those provisions;
                                                                           2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.


title: Case C-237/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 22 May 2015 — Minister for Justice and Equality v Francis Lanigan

text:
               20.7.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 236/30

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Ireland (Ireland) made on 22 May 2015 — Minister for Justice and Equality v Francis Lanigan
   (Case C-237/15)
   (2015/C 236/40)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister for Justice and Equality

      Defendant: Francis Lanigan

      Questions referred

               1.

               What is the effect of a failure to observe the time limits stipulated in Article 17 of the Framework Decision of the 13th June, 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member States (2002/584/JHA) (1) read in conjunction with the provisions of Article 15 of the said Framework decision?

               2.

               Does failure to observe the time limits stipulated in Article 17 of the Framework Decision of the 13th June, 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between member States (2002/584/JHA) give rise to rights on the part of an individual who has been held in custody pending a decision on his/her surrender for a period in excess of those time periods?

      (1)  OJ L 190, p. 1.


title: Case T-311/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2006 — Buendía Sierra v Commission (Officials — Promotion — 2003 promotion procedure — Allocation of priority points)

text:
               16.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 310/13

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2006 — Buendía Sierra v Commission
   (Case T-311/04) (1)

   (Officials - Promotion - 2003 promotion procedure - Allocation of priority points)
   (2006/C 310/25)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: José Luis Buendía Sierra (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. van der Woude and V. Landes, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and V. Joris, Agents, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)
   Re:
   Annulment:

               —

               of the decision of the Director General of the Commission's legal service to allocate only one Directorate General priority point to the applicant under the 2003 promotion procedure, communicated on 2 July 2003, confirmed by a decision of the Appointing Authority, notified on 16 December 2003;

               —

               of the Appointing Authority's decision not to allocate any special priority points for additional activities in the interests of the institution to the applicant under the 2003 promotion procedure, notified by means of the Sysper 2 system on 16 December 2003;

               —

               of the following decisions: the Appointing Authority's decision to allocate a total of 20 points to the applicant under the 2003 promotion procedure; the merit list of Grade A5 officials under the 2003 procedure, published in Administrative Notice No 69-2003 of 13 November 2003; the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 under the 2003 procedure, published in Administrative Notice No 73-2003 of 27 November 2003; in any event, the decision not to include the applicant's name on those lists;

               —

               so far as necessary, of the Appointing Authority's decision of 15 June 2004 rejecting his complaint brought on 12 February 2004.

         Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the Commission's decisions setting the applicant's total promotion points at 20 and refusing to include his name on the list of officials promoted to Grade A4 under the 2003 promotion procedure;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.


title: Case C-522/12: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Deutschland) lodged on 19 November 2012 — Tevfik Isbir v DB Services GmbH

text:
               2.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Deutschland) lodged on 19 November 2012 — Tevfik Isbir v DB Services GmbH
   (Case C-522/12)
   2013/C 32/06
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesarbeitsgericht

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tevfik Isbir

      Defendant: DB Services GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the expression ‘minimum rates of pay’ in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, point (c) of Directive 96/71/EC (1) to be interpreted as referring to the consideration of the employer for the work done by the worker which should be discharged according to the law, regulation or administrative provision or the universally applicable collective agreement referred to in the opening sentence of Article 3(1) of the directive only and exclusively by the collective minimum wage (‘usual work’), meaning that it is only those employer payments which reward that usual work and which must be available to the worker at the latest on the date when they are payable within the respective wage payment period which can be counted towards the fulfilment of the obligation to pay the minimum rate of pay?

               2.

               Is the expression ‘minimum rates of pay’ in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, point (c) of Directive 96/71/EC to be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices according to which payments by an employer are not be to regarded as part of the minimum wage and therefore cannot be counted towards fulfilment of the entitlement to the minimum wage, if the employer makes those payments on the basis of a collective agreement-based obligation,

                           —

                           and the payments, according to the intention of the parties to the collective agreement and of the legislature, have capital-generating objectives for the workers,

                     and to that end,

                           —

                           the monthly payments by the employer to the employee are for long-term purposes such as contributions towards savings, the construction or acquisition of a residence or capital life insurance, and

                           —

                           are subsidised by allowances and tax breaks from the State, and

                           —

                           the worker is entitled to access those contributions only after several years have elapsed, and

                           —

                           the level of the contributions in the form of a fixed monthly sum is dependent only on the agreed working time and not on the salary paid (‘capital-generating contributions’)?

      (1)  Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1)


title: Case F-25/07: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2010 — Bleser v Court of Justice (Civil Service — Officials — Appointment — Classification in grade by application of new, less favourable, rules — Articles 2 and 13 of Annexe XIII to the Staff Regulations — Principle of transparency — Principle of correspondence between the grade and the post — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Duty of care — Principle of sound administration — Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity — The prohibition on reformatio in pejus — Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations — Principle of good faith — Principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti)

text:
               5.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/18

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 14 December 2010 — Bleser v Court of Justice
   (Case F-25/07) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Appointment - Classification in grade by application of new, less favourable, rules - Articles 2 and 13 of Annexe XIII to the Staff Regulations - Principle of transparency - Principle of correspondence between the grade and the post - Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age - Duty of care - Principle of sound administration - Principles of legal certainty and non-retroactivity - The prohibition on reformatio in pejus - Principle of the protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of good faith - Principle patere legem quam ipse fecisti)
   2011/C 38/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Thomas Bleser (Nittel, Germany) (represented by: P. Goergen and M. Wehrheim, lawyers)

      Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union (represented initially by: M. Schauss, Agent, later by A. V. Placco and M. Glaeser, Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and M. Simm, Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice classifying the applicant, who was placed on a reserve list before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, in accordance with the less favourable provisions thereof (Article 12 of Annex XII to Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007, p. 36.


title: Case T-169/09: Action brought on 28 April 2009 — Vidieffe Srl v OHIM

text:
               20.6.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 141/57

         Action brought on 28 April 2009 — Vidieffe Srl v OHIM
   (Case T-169/09)
   2009/C 141/115
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant(s): Vidieffe Srl (Bologna, Italy) (represented by: M. Lamandini, avvocato, D. De Pasquale, avvocato, and M. Pappalardo, avvocato)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, for breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1) (replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark, OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) and/or misuse of powers, the decision of 12 February 2009 of the first Board of Appeal of OHIM insofar as it upholds the appeal in part and annuls the part of the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM which rejects the opposition in relation to ‘leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks’ in Class 18 and all goods in Class 25; as a result, uphold in full the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM (proceedings No B 909 350 of 22 February 2008).

               —

               Order OHIM to take the necessary measures to comply with the decision of the Court of First Instance.

               —

               Order OHIM and Perry Ellis to bear all the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Vidieffe Srl

      Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘GOTHA’ (application for registration No 3 665 957), for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Perry Ellis International Group Holdings Ltd.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: figurative Community trade mark ‘gotcha’ (No 2 896 199) for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition in its entirety.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal partially upheld.

      Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (replaced by Regulation No 207/2009) and misuse of powers in finding that there is a likelihood of confusing signs which are not likely to be confused.


title: Case T-579/13: Action brought on 6 November 2013 — Istituto Di Vigilanza Dell'Urbe v Commission

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/18

         Action brought on 6 November 2013 — Istituto Di Vigilanza Dell'Urbe v Commission
   (Case T-579/13)
   2013/C 377/42
   Language of the Procedure: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Istituto Di Vigilanza Dell’Urbe SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: D. Dodaro and S. Cianciullo, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               find that the tender of the successful tenderer, Città di Roma Metronotte s.r.l., fails to comply with the lex specialis governing tenders and in particular with point 5.2 of the specifications under which the tenders should have been drawn up in accordance ‘with European and national law concerning the transfer of undertakings and in particular with Directive 2001/23/EC and with the national measures implementing that directive’ with regard in particular to the ‘provisions for the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of a change of employer as a result of the legal transfer of an undertaking’;

               —

               find that the tender submitted by the Città di Roma Metronotte s.r.l. objectively infringes the principles of equal treatment and of competition, and is therefore contrary to the provisions contained in 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, Recital 42 of the preamble to which states that ‘[t]he purpose of the procedures for the award of contracts is to satisfy the needs of the institutions on the best possible terms while guaranteeing equal access to public contracts and complying with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination’;

               —

               consequently, annul the decision awarding the contract to Città di Roma Metronotte s.r.l. and set aside any contract that may have been concluded with that company;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay compensation for harm suffered.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present action is brought against the measure of the Representation of the European Commission in Italy, Commission ref. ARES (2013) 2936015, of 27 August 2013, concerning ‘PO/2013-11-SEC/ROM — Interinstitutional call for tenders concerning security guard and reception services at the European Union Houses in Rome and Milan, Italy — Lot 1: European Commission Representation and European Parliament Information Office’, which rejected the applicant’s tender.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea, alleging breach of the lex specialis governing tenders and infringement of the principle of equal treatment.

                           —

                           the applicant claims in that regard that the lex specialis provided that the successful tenderer of the service should have carried out the switch between contractors by employing the security guards previously employed by the outgoing contractor company on the same site. The successful tenderer however refused to carry out the switch between contractors; and that

                           —

                           by implicit confirmation of the award, the defendant infringed the principle of the equal treatment that calls for the drawing up and impartial application of unequivocal and uniform call for tender rules for all tenderers.

               2.

               Second plea, alleging breach of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012.

                           —

                           the applicant claims in that regard infringement of the principle, enshrined in Article 2 of Directive 2004/18/EC, according to which competitors are to be treated equally, and of the principles, reflected in that directive, according to which the interests of transparency and competition, as well as the relevant employment protection rules, are to be respected; and that

                           —

                           the successful tenderer could submit an economically advantageous tender only by not complying with the rules of the lex specialis governing tenders, of collective bargaining and of the European and national employment protection principles, with which the other tenderers complied.


title: Case T-366/02: Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Muswellbrook Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

text:
C 44/36               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                     22.2.2003
The Community trade mark in respect of which registration is              —     order the defendant and, where appropriate, the inter-
sought is the word mark ‘NIKE F.I.T.’ — application                             vener to pay all the costs of the proceedings and those
No 277731 in respect of goods in Class 25 ‘clothing, footwear                   incurred at the administrative stages of the opposition
and headgear’.                                                                  and appeal proceedings.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant seeking the Community trade mark, the pro-
                                                                          prietor of the mark cited in opposition, the tenor of the
                                                                          decisions of the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal
Action brought on 5 December 2002 by Muswellbrook                         and the pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       in Case T-362/02 (MUSWELLBROOK LIMITED v OHIM).
                    Internal Market (OHIM)
                                                                          The Community trade mark in respect of which registration is
                        (Case T-366/02)                                   sought is the mixed mark ‘TRIAX NIKE SERIES’ with graphic
                                                                          — application No 252411 in respect of goods in Class 25
                                                                          ‘clothing, footwear and headgear’.
                         (2003/C 44/68)
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                          Action brought on 10 December 2002 by Bernard Barbé
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                           against the European Parliament
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 5 December 2002 by
Muswellbrook Limited, established in Dublin (Ireland), rep-                                       (Case T-371/02)
resented by J. Casulá Oliver, lawyer.
                                                                                (2003/C 44/69)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the Case: French)
—    declare incompatible with Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on
     the Community trade mark, in particular Article 15(2)(a)
     and/or Article 42(2) and (3) and/or Article 8(1)(b) thereof,
     the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of             An action against the European Parliament was brought before
     30 September 2002 in case No R 880/1999-1, inasmuch                  the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
     as it declares that the opponent has failed to prove                 10 December 2002 by Bernard Barbé, resident at Luxembourg,
     genuine use in the Community of the Spanish trade mark               represented by Alain Loraing, lawyer, with an address for
     No 88222 to distinguish ready-to-wear and other items                service in Luxembourg.
     of clothing in Class 25 during the five years preceding
     the publication of the application for a Community trade
     mark;                                                                The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul that decision in its entirety;                                 —     rule that the Parliament wrongly has not passed on to
                                                                                him the deductions from Mrs Boez’s salary which fell due
                                                                                up until 11 November 1998;
—    agree to vary that decision so as to declare that an
     assessment of and a ruling on the merits of the opposition
     to registration of Community trade mark No 252411 is                 —     order payment to him of the deductions made in respect
     appropriate, to which end the Court’s judgment should                      of the months from March 1998 to November 1998
     declare that Community trade mark No 252411 is                             inclusive;
     refused, or, in the alternative, refer the case back to the
     First Board of Appeal of the OHIM;                                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-206/17: Action brought on 3 April 2017 — Argus Security Projects v Commission and EUBAM

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/33

         Action brought on 3 April 2017 — Argus Security Projects v Commission and EUBAM
   (Case T-206/17)
   (2017/C 195/46)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Argus Security Projects Ltd (Limassol, Cyprus) (represented by: T. Bontinck and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

      Defendants: European Commission, European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (EUBAM)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of EUBAM of 24 January 2017, replacing the initial decision of 16 February 2014, not to accept the tender submitted by the Argus company in a call for tenders concerning the supply of security services as part of the European Union Integrated Border Management Assistance Mission in Libya (contract EUBAM-13-020), and to award the contract to Garda;

               —

               order the defendants to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 110 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), of the rules laid down in the specifications for the award of the contract, in particular points 4.1 and 12.1 of the instructions to tenderers, and of the principles of equal treatment of tenderers and of non-discrimination. This plea is divided into three parts:

                           —

                           first part, alleging a failure to mobilise technical and operational resources in accordance with the terms of the contract;

                           —

                           second part, alleging a failure to mobilise human resources in accordance with the terms of the contract;

                           —

                           third part, alleging that the mobilisation plan was artificial and criticising the taking into account of the prior experience of tenderers in hostile environments.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a substantive amendment to the initial conditions of the contract and infringement of the principle of equal treatment. This plea is divided into two parts:

                           —

                           first part, relating to the assessment of human resources;

                           —

                           second part, relating to the assessment of technical resources and the mobilisation plan.


title: Case C-59/99: Action brought on 19 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against 1. Manuel Pereira Roldão & Filhos, Lda.; 2. Instituto Superior Técnico; and 3. King, Taudevin & Gregson (Holdings) Ltd

text:
C 121/10               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.5.1999
4. If the second question is to be answered in the affirmative,                compatible with Articles 73b and 52 of the EC Treaty,
     does the fact that in December 1995 the Netherlands                       such a procedure must be justified by overriding consider-
     programme for combating Aujeszky’s disease in pigs was                    ations in the public interest and based on criteria which
     approved by the European Commission for 1996 have any                     are objective, fixed and public, so that the discretion
     bearing on the question whether Article 2(1) of the                       enjoyed by the national authorities is reduced to a
     Veordening Bestrijding Ziekte van Aujeszky is applicable                  minimum.
     to the present case? If so, what bearing does it have?
                                                                           c) In the context of the privatisation of ENI and Telecom
(1) Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a                Italia, the Commission maintains that the introduction of
    procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical       special powers is not justified. The Italian authorities
    standards and regulations (OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8).                     should have been able to meet their needs with order
                                                                               provisions which did not involve the compulsory limi-
                                                                               tation of property rights and were accordingly less restric-
                                                                               tive of the freedoms at issue.
Action brought on 19 February 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                          (Case C-58/99)
                                                                           Action brought on 19 February 1999 by the Commission
                         (1999/C 121/18)                                   of the European Communities against 1. Manuel Pereira
                                                                           Roldão & Filhos, Lda.; 2. Instituto Superior Técnico; and
                                                                                3. King, Taudevin & Gregson (Holdings) Ltd
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 February
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                                                 (Case C-59/99)
represented by Antonio Aresu and Maria Patakia of its Legal
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in                                          (1999/C 121/19)
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                         An action against 1. Manuel Pereira Roldão & Filhos, Lda.; 2.
                                                                           Instituto Superior Técnico; and 3. King, Taudevin & Gregson
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                (Holdings) Ltd was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities on 19 February 1999 by the
— declare that, by adopting Articles 1(5) and 2 of the                     Commission of the European Communities, represented by
     consolidated text of Decree Law No 332 of 31 May 1994,                Francisco de Sousa Fialho, of its Legal Service, and by Olivier
     converted with amendments into Law No 474 of 30 July                  Couvert-Castéra, a national civil servant on secondment to its
     1994, and the decrees concerning certain special powers               Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
     in relation to the privatisation of ENI and Telecom Italia,           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
     the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under       Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
     Articles 52, 59 and 73b of the EC Treaty;
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-              The applicant claims that the Court should order the defend-
     ings.                                                                 ants to pay EUR 357 813, together with EUR 185 833,78 by
                                                                           way of interest until 1 January 1999, plus any interest accrued
                                                                           until full repayment is actually made; and the costs of these
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        proceedings.
a) The sentence in Article 1(5) of the consolidated text which
     provides that certain work may be undertaken only by                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     individual professionals who have been registered as
     provided for by statute for at least five years is incompatible       This action has been brought under Article 181 of the EC
     with Articles 59 and 52 of the EC Treaty, in so far as it             Treaty seeking repayment of money paid in advence under a
     unlawfully excludes any professional legally operating in             contract in terms of which the European Community under-
     other Member States or whose establishment in Italy took              took to give financial assistance to the first applicant to enable
     place recently.                                                       him to install a low-cost, moderate pollution tank for the
                                                                           melting of lead crystal, as part of the promotion of energy
                                                                           technology in Europe (thermie programme) provided for by
b) Article 2 of the consolidated text, which confers special               Council Regulation (EEC) No 2008/90 (1). That contract was
     powers on the Treasury Minister, places a restriction on              terminated by the applicant on the ground of breach of
     freedom of movement for persons and on the right of                   contract by the defendants.
     establishment.
     The procedure for the authorisation of significant share              (1) OJ L 185, 17.7.1990, p. 1.
     purchases by investors and of agreements between share-
     holders gives the national authorities a power to discrimi-
     nate which they may use arbitrarily. In order to be


title: Case T -146/06: Action brought on 22 May 2006 — SANOFI AVENTIS v OHIM — G.D. SEARLE ( ATURION )

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/23

         Action brought on 22 May 2006 — SANOFI AVENTIS v OHIM — G.D. SEARLE (‘ATURION’)
   (Case T -146/06)
   (2006/C 190/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: SANOFI AVENTIS, S.A. (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Armijo Chavarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: G.D. SEARLE LLC
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2006 in Case R 227/2005-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: G.D. SEARLE LLC.

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ATURION’ for goods in Class 5 — application No1 662 311.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘URION’ for goods in Class 5.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, given that the marks in question may create a likelihood of confusion on the market.


title: Case C-461/05: Action brought on  23 December 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/18

         Action brought on 23 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
   (Case C-461/05)
   (2006/C 48/35)
   Language of the case: Danish
   An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Wilms and H.C. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by refusing to calculate and pay own resources which were not collected by reason of the duty-free importation of military equipment, and by refusing to pay default interest on the own resources which Denmark failed to make available to the Commission, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1552/89 for the period up to 31 May 2000 and under those articles of Regulation No 1150/2000 in respect of the period after that date;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Commission takes the view that Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 up to and including 31 May 2000 and under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 from 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2002 by reason of its failure to pay own resources in respect of the importation of military equipment.
   This breach of the Treaty continued until Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 entered into force, that is to say, until 1 January 2003. Under that regulation duty on imports of certain types of military equipment may, subject to specified conditions, be suspended from that date.
   In the Commission's view, a Member State which has set aside the Community-law rules on duty, resulting in a loss of own resources, is under an obligation to pay to the Community an amount corresponding to that loss. Default interest may also have to be added to that amount pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000.
   The Danish authorities ought, under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000, to have calculated and entered in their accounts the amounts relating to the imports in question within the prescribed period, in accordance with Article 217(1) of the Community Customs Code, and made those amounts available to the Commission.
   The Commission finds that Denmark, although requested to do so, failed to carry out the calculations necessary to establish those amounts, which were not paid as own resources to the Community by reason of the Treaty infringement in question dating from the 1998 accounting year.
   The Commission also finds that the amounts corresponding to the customs debt in question were not made available to the Commission before 31 March 2002.
   The Commission accordingly finds that, by not establishing its own resources in respect of imports of military equipment and making those resources available to the Commission, Denmark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 and of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000.


title: Case T-301/09: Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2012 — IG Communications Ltd v OHIM — Citigroup and Citibank (CITIGATE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark CITIGATE — Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks containing the element ‘citi’ — Relative grounds for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Family of trade marks — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark — Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               10.11.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/12

         Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2012 — IG Communications Ltd v OHIM — Citigroup and Citibank (CITIGATE)
   (Case T-301/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark CITIGATE - Earlier national and Community word and figurative marks containing the element ‘citi’ - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Family of trade marks - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 343/17
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: IG Communications Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough QC and R. Beard, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Citigroup, Inc. (New York, New York, United States); and Citibank, NA (New York) (represented: initially by V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, lawyers, and H. O’Neill, Solicitor, and subsequently by V. von Bomhard and A. Renck)

      Re:

   Action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 April 2009 (Case R 821/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between Citigroup, Inc. and Citibank, NA, on the one hand, and IG Communications Ltd on the other.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders IG Communications Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case T-812/14: Action brought on 12 December 2014 — BPC Lux 2 a.o. v Commission

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/60

         Action brought on 12 December 2014 — BPC Lux 2 a.o. v Commission
   (Case T-812/14)
   (2015/C 046/78)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: BPC Lux 2 Sàrl (Senningerberg, Luxembourg), BPC UKI LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), Bennett Offshore Restructuring Fund, Inc. (George Town, Cayman Islands), Bennett Restructuring Fund LP (Wilmington, United States), Queen Street Fund Ltd (George Town, Cayman Islands), BTG Pactual Global Emerging Markets and Macro Master Fund LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), BTG Pactual Absolute Return II Master Fund LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), CSS LLC (Chicago, United States), Beltway Strategic Opportunities Fund LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), EJF Debt Opportunities Master Fund LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), EJF DO Fund (Cayman) LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), TP Lux HoldCo (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), VR Global Partners LP (George Town, Cayman Islands), Absalon II Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), CenturyLink, Inc. Defined Benefit Master Trust (Denver, United States), City of New York Group Trust (New York, United States), Dignity Health (San Francisco, United States), GoldenTree Asset Management Lux Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), GoldenTree High Yield Value Fund Offshore 110 Two Ltd (Dublin, Ireland), San Bernardino County Employees Retirement Association (San Bernardino, United States) (represented by: J. Webber and M. Steenson, Solicitors and P. Fajardo, lawyer)

      Defendants: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision adopted by the Commission on 3 August 2014 not to raise objections to a measure notified by Portugal for the restructuring of Banco Espirito Santo S.A. (BES), in the procedure SA.39250; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the applicants.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on two pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission committed errors of law, fact and procedure in manifestly failing to correctly assess the counterfactual, in particular regarding the availability of private capital to participate in the restructuring of BES.

                           —

                           The Commission breached numerous requirements of the Banking Communication by failing to assess at all, or alternatively failing to provide reasoning, in respect of whether: a) aid was limited to the minimum necessary, b) private capital had been exploited to the maximum extent, c) an exception to the requirement that subordinated debt holders contribute in full on basis of impact on financial stability and disproportionality applied, and d) the no creditor worse off principle had been respected.

                           —

                           The Commission failed to investigate the counterfactual and therefore made an incorrect factual assumption that the only alternative to the notified measures was liquidation of BES. The Commission failed to consider the evidence that new private capital was available and could have reduced the State aid required by the notified measure.

                           —

                           The Commission was under a duty to initiate the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. In failing to do so, the Commission breached the applicants’ procedural rights under that provision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission breached the applicants’ procedural rights in failing to open the formal investigation procedure.

                           —

                           The notification, considered objectively, raised serious difficulties of assessment with respect to both facts and law.

                           —

                           The Commission’s preliminary assessment, lasting a single Sunday, cannot have been complete and sufficient given the significance and difficulty of the subject matter of the investigation.

                           —

                           The Commission had reasons to believe that the information before it may be unreliable or at a minimum required verification before reliance could be placed upon it.

                           —

                           The Commission failed to consider paragraphs 50 to 53 of the Banking Communication, which establishes a two stage rescue and restructuring process for urgent situations such as that of BES.

                           —

                           The Commission had a duty to open a formal investigation. The Commission's failure to do so deprived the applicants, as interested parties, of any ability to participate in the procedure, in breach of their legitimate procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU.


title: Case T-657/11: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission (Action for annulment — Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities — Letter notifying the applicant of the Commission’s intention to recover the adjusted sums pursuant to a research financing contract — Acts inseparable from the contract — Inadmissibility)

text:
               20.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/10

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2012 — Technion and Technion Research & Development Foundation v Commission
   (Case T-657/11) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Sixth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities - Letter notifying the applicant of the Commission’s intention to recover the adjusted sums pursuant to a research financing contract - Acts inseparable from the contract - Inadmissibility)
   2012/C 319/18
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Technion — Israel Institute of Technology (Haifa, Israel) and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd (Haifa) (represented by: D. Grisay and D. Piccininno, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Calciu and F. Moro, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 19 October 2011 notifying the applicant of the issuing of a debit note for the reimbursement of the sum of EUR 97 106,72, corresponding to the amount of the adjusted sums for contract No 034984 (Mosaica), following the conclusions of the financial audit concerning, inter alia, that contract, concluded under the sixth framework programme of the European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities, contributing to the creation of the European research area and to innovation (2002 — 2006)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

               2.

               Technion — Israel Institute of Technology and Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd are ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 73, 10.3.2012.


title: Case C-522/11: Order of the Court (Third Chamber Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Lecce — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Abdoul Khadre Mbaye (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure — Area of freedom, security and justice — Directive 2008/115/EC — Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals — National legislation penalising illegal residence by criminal sanctions)

text:
               1.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/16

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber Chamber) of 21 March 2013 — (request for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di pace di Lecce — Italy) — Criminal proceedings against Abdoul Khadre Mbaye
   (Case C-522/11) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure - Area of freedom, security and justice - Directive 2008/115/EC - Common standards and procedures for returning illegally staying third-country nationals - National legislation penalising illegal residence by criminal sanctions)
   2013/C 156/25
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Giudice di pace di Lecce

      Criminal proceedings against

   Abdoul Khadre Mbaye

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Ufficio del Giudice di Pace Lecce — Interpretation of Articles 2(2)(b), 6, 7 and 8 of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals (OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98) — National legislation providing for a fine of between EUR 5 000 and EUR 10 000 for a foreign national who has illegally entered or illegally stayed on the national territory — Whether a criminal offence of illegal residence is permissible — Whether immediate expulsion for a period of at least five years, as an alternative to a fine, is permissible

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               Third-country nationals prosecuted for or convicted of the offence of illegal residence provided for in the legislation of a Member State cannot, on account solely of that offence of illegal residence, be excluded from the scope of Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals, pursuant to Article 2(2)(b) of that directive.

               2.

               Directive 2008/115 does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, penalising the illegal residence of third-country nationals by a fine which may be replaced by expulsion. However, it is only possible to have recourse to that option to replace the fine where the situation of the person concerned corresponds to one of those referred to in Article 7(4) of that directive.

      (1)  OJ C 370, 17.12.2011.


title: Case T-57/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 September 2009 — E.ON Ruhrgas and E.ON Földgáz Trade v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Concentrations — Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market — Commitments — Commission letters regarding the commitments — Non-actionable measures — Inadmissibility)

text:
               7.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 267/64

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 September 2009 — E.ON Ruhrgas and E.ON Földgáz Trade v Commission
   (Case T-57/07) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Competition - Concentrations - Decision declaring the concentration compatible with the common market - Commitments - Commission letters regarding the commitments - Non-actionable measures - Inadmissibility)
   2009/C 267/114
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: E.ON Ruhrgas International AG (Essen, Germany); and E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: G. Wiedemann and T. Lübbig, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet and V. Di Bucci, Agents)

      Re:

   APPLICATION for annulment of the decisions allegedly contained in the Commission’s letters of 19 December 2006 and 16 January 2007 concerning the commitments entered into by E.ON Ruhrgas International AG referred to in Article 3 of the Commission Decision of 21 December 2005 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.3696 — E.ON/MOL).

      Operative part of the order

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action as inadmissible;

               2.

               Orders E.ON Ruhrgas International AG and E.ON Földgáz Trade Zrt to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-365/16: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association française des entreprises v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States — Directive 2011/96/EU — Prevention of double taxation — Contribution of 3 % in addition to corporation tax)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/18

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État — France) — Association française des entreprises v Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics
   (Case C-365/16) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States - Directive 2011/96/EU - Prevention of double taxation - Contribution of 3 % in addition to corporation tax))
   (2017/C 239/24)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Conseil d’État

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Association française des entreprises privées (AFEP), Axa SA, Compagnie générale des établissements Michelin SCA, Danone SA, ENGIE SA, formerly GDF Suez, Eutelsat Communications SA, LVMH Moët Hennessy-Louis Vuitton SE, Orange SA, Sanofi SA, Suez Environnement Company SA, Technip SA, Total SA, Vivendi SA, Eurazeo SA, Safran SA, Scor SE, Unibail-Rodamco SE, Zodiac Aerospace SA

      Defendant: Ministre des Finances et des Comptes publics

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(1)(a) of Council Directive 2011/96/EU of 30 November 2011 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, as amended by Council Directive 2014/86/EU of 8 July 2014, must be interpreted as precluding a tax measure laid down by the Member State of a parent company, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, providing for the levy of a tax when the parent company distributes dividends and the basis of assessment of which tax is the amounts of the dividends distributed, including those coming from that company’s non-resident subsidiaries.

      (1)  OJ C 335, 12.9.2016.


title: Case C-600/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free movement of capital — Taxation of dividends and interest paid to pension funds and pension insurance schemes — Treatment of dividends and interest paid to non-resident institutions — Deduction of operating costs directly linked to the receipt of income in the form of dividends and interest — Burden of proof)

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 November 2012 — Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-600/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Free movement of capital - Taxation of dividends and interest paid to pension funds and pension insurance schemes - Treatment of dividends and interest paid to non-resident institutions - Deduction of operating costs directly linked to the receipt of income in the form of dividends and interest - Burden of proof)
   2013/C 26/05
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and N. Rouam, Agents), Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: C. Wissels and C. Schillemans, Agents), Republic of Finland (represented by: M. Pere, Agent), Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Falk and S. Johannesson, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: H. Walker, Agent, and by G. Facenna, Barrister)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 63 TFEU and of Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — National legal provisions on the taxation of dividends and interest paid to pension funds and pension insurance schemes, granting certain fiscal advantages only in respect of dividends and interest paid to resident institutions

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Federal Republic of Germany;

               3.

               Orders the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 80, 12.3.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 4 March 2004 In Joined Cases C-238/02 and C-246/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): PARTIE 1 v PARTIE 2

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/6

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   4 March 2004
   In Joined Cases C-238/02 and C-246/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): PARTIE 1 v PARTIE 2 (1)

   (Community Customs Code - Extent of the obligation as to presentation of goods arriving at customs - National legislation providing for an express declaration in respect of hidden goods at the time of presentation of goods at customs - Persons having brought in the goods and being under a duty to declare them - Concept of customs debtor)
   (2004/C 94/11)
   Language of the case: German
   In Joined Cases C-238/02 and C-246/02: References to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stadt and Kazimieras Viluckas (C-238/02), Ricardas Jonusas (C-246/02), on the interpretation of Article 4(19), Article 40 and the first indent of Article 202(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

               1.

               The presentation to customs of goods introduced into the Community, in terms of Article 4(19) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code concerns all goods, including those hidden in a secret compartment specially made for that purpose. The obligation to present goods as set out in Article 38 of that Code rests, as provided by Article 40 of the Code, with the driver and co-driver of a lorry who introduced the goods, even though the goods were hidden in the vehicle without their knowledge.

               2.

               The person who has introduced goods into the customs territory of the Community without mentioning them in the notification of presentation to customs is a customs debtor within the meaning of the first indent of Article 202(3) of the Community Customs Code.

      (1)  OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.


title: Case C-16/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 January 2012 — HERMES Hitel és Faktor Zrt. v Nemzeti Földalapkezelő Szervezet

text:
               28.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 126/4

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gyulai Törvényszék (Hungary) lodged on 13 January 2012 — HERMES Hitel és Faktor Zrt. v Nemzeti Földalapkezelő Szervezet
   (Case C-16/12)
   2012/C 126/06
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Gyulai Törvényszék

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: HERMES Hitel és Faktor Zrt.

      Defendant: Nemzeti Földalapkezelő Szervezet

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must the principles of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, which are considered to be fundamental principles of European Union law, be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a Member State from adopting provisions which vary the content of a contract concluded by a Member State, in its capacity as proprietor, to the detriment of the other party to the contract, classifying the object of the contract as non-transferable and thereby preventing the other party from exercising the rights derived from the contract?

               2.

               If the first question is answered in the affirmative, is the national court obliged, by the principle of sincere cooperation laid down by Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, to disapply the domestic provision governing the legal position on non-transferability and declare the object of the contract transferable, contrary to the provisions of the national legislation?