title: Case T-172/14: Action brought on 20 March 2014  — Stahlwerk Bous v Commission

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/46

         Action brought on 20 March 2014 — Stahlwerk Bous v Commission
   (Case T-172/14)
   2014/C 142/59
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Stahlwerk Bous GmbH (Bous, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the defendant’s decision, in respect of State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) — Germany — Support for renewable electricity and reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users, to initiate the formal procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU, notified with the invitation to submit comments (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies in essence on the following pleas in law:

               1.

               Breach of essential procedural requirements

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the defendant failed to give sufficient reasons, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 296 TFEU, for its decision to initiate a formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) TFEU. The decision to initiate the investigation procedure contains no specific substantive assessment based on factual and legal aspects with regard to the existence of all the constituent elements for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU.

               2.

               Infringement of the Treaties

                           —

                           The applicant submits here that the Commission’s decision to initiate the investigation procedure infringes Article 107(1) TFEU. In this respect, the applicant states that the European Court of Justice has already held in Case C-397/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I-2099 that the Law on the priority of renewable energy sources (‘EEG’) does not grant any aid. The EEG remains in force essentially unchanged. Particularly the essential aspects for the State aid assessment have remained unchanged. The same applies to the defendant’s decision of 22 May 2002 (OJ 2002 C 164, p. 5), in which the defendant stated that the EEG did not constitute aid.

                           —

                           The applicant further submits that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not fulfil the State aid conditions under Article 107(1) TFEU. In that regard, it submits, in particular, that the reduced EEG-surcharge does not constitute an advantage which a user would not have received under normal market conditions, that it is not selective, that it is not aid granted by a Member State or through State resources and that it does not result in a distortion of competition or in a possible effect upon trade between Member States.

               3.

               Compatibility with the common market

                           —

                           If the Court is of the opinion that State aid exists, that aid would, in the applicant’s view, be compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 107(3)(b) and (c) TFEU.


title: Case T-395/03: Action brought on 10 December 2003 by Sophie van Weyenbergh against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 59/22               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.3.2004
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 2 December 2003 by Yedas Tarim ve                       lack of sufficient financial aid and therefore a disadvantage in
Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. against the Council of                    terms of fair competition with other companies in the field.
the European Union and the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                          (1) Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of
                                                                              22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the
                                                                              Customs Union (OJ L 35 of 13 February 1996, p. 1).
                        (Case T-367/03)                                   (2) Agreement establishing an Association between the European
                                                                              Economic Community and Turkey (OJ P 217 of 29 December
                                                                              1964, p. 3687) (No English text available).
                         (2004/C 59/36)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          Action brought on 10 December 2003 by Sophie van
                                                                          Weyenbergh against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought                                                (Case T-395/03)
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 2 December 2003 by Yedas Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve                                            (2004/C 59/37)
Ticaret A.S., Istanbul, (Turkey), represented by R. Sinner,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     grant compensation to the applicant for the loss incurred           European Communities on 10 December 2003 by Sophie van
      due to the Customs Union procedures generally, which                Weyenbergh, resident in Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
      arose from the Ankara Agreement, the Additional Proto-              Carlos Mourato, lawyer.
      col and its appendices, and especially the Common
      Council Decision No 1/95 of the European Community.                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the selection board of Competition
                                                                                COM/TB/99 not to include the applicant in the list of
                                                                                suitable candidates;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
                                                                                EUR 72 924,00, subject to modification in the course of
                                                                                the proceedings, in respect of damages for material and
The applicant is a small and medium sized enterprise, active in                 non-material loss;
the automotive industry. The applicant claims to have suffered
a loss caused by the customs union between the European                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the case.
Union and Turkey (1), established in 1996. According to the
applicant, the European Union has not fulfilled all of its
obligations arising from the customs union and the Ankara                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Agreement (2).
                                                                          Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          13 March 2002 in Joined Cases T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/
The applicant claims that Turkey would be given loans and                 00 and T-364/00 (1) annulling the decision of the selection
donations from the Community’s program for Mediterranean                  board to reject the applicant’s candidature for internal Compe-
countries and from the European Union’s budget resources in               tition COM/TB/99 for the constitution of a reserve list of
order to eliminate the negative effects of the customs union              administrative assistants in career bracket B4/B5, the applicant
on Turkey’s economy. According to the applicant, the assist-              was called to a new oral test. She objects to the failure to
ance given was inadequate. The applicant, as a small and                  include her name on the list of suitable candidates in this
medium company, claims to have suffered losses due to the                 competition.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/23
In this regard, she points out that the letter by which she was           Pleas in law and main arguments
notified of the contested decision bears the date of 20 January
2003, that is to say three days before the date on which the
oral test in question actually took place. That error was later           The applicant was an official of the European Parliament when
corrected.                                                                he was transferred to OHIM on 1st October 1998. By the
                                                                          contested decision, OHIM informed the applicant of his
                                                                          number of merit points for the 2002 promotion year. When
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:                           calculating those points, OHIM limited the applicant’s length
                                                                          of service in the grade to five years and as a result did not take
—     breach of the notice of the competition in question and a           account of the period from 1 January 1991 to 31 October
      defect in the procedure, in that the selection board could          1993.
      not evaluate her on her oral abilities until it had
      interviewed her;
                                                                          In support of his claim for annulment, the applicant submits,
                                                                          firstly, that there was a breach of Article 1 of Decision ADM
—     misuse of powers given that the selection board was                 02-39 rev of OHIM concerning the career and promotion of
      biased;                                                             officials and temporary staff, and of the principles of legality,
                                                                          legal certainty and equal treatment. He submits, furthermore,
—     breach of the principle of equal treatment; and                     that that there was a breach of the Staff Regulations in so far
                                                                          as the principles applicable to transfers between institutions
—     breach of the requirement to state grounds for a decision.          were not adhered to and that the applicant’s legitimate
                                                                          expectations when he accepted the transfer were not upheld.
                                                                          The applicant submits, finally, that there was a breach of the
(1) [2002] ECR-SC I-A-37, II-161.                                         requirement to state the reasons for the disputed decision and
                                                                          of the principle of proportionality.
Action brought on 11 December 2003 by Manuel Simões                       Action brought on 18 December 2003 by Hoechst AG
dos Santos against the Office for Harmonisation in the                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                         Internal Market
                                                                                (Case T-410/03)
                        (Case T-409/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 59/39)
                          (2004/C 59/38)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance              Communities on 18 December 2003 by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt
of the European Communities on 11 December 2003 by                        am Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and V. Turn-
Manuel Simões dos Santos, resident in Alicante (Spain),                   er, lawyers.
represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, lawyer.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —      annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the
—     annul the implied decision of the Appointing Authority                     applicant;
      rejecting the complaint made by the applicant and the
      decision of 14 February 2003 fixing his initial number of           —      in the alternative, make an appropriate reduction in the
      merit points for the 2002 promotion year in so far as it                   amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in the
      limits his period of service in the European Parliament;                   contested decision;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the case.               —      order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Appeal brought on 19 July 1997 by the cooperative society 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer' (VBA) BA against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-77/94 between, on the one hand, Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten, Florimex BV, Inkoop Service Aalsmeer BV and M. Verhaar BV and, on the other hand, the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the cooperative society 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer' (VBA) BA (Case C-266/97 P)

text:
18 . 10 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 318/5
Appeal brought on 19 July 1997 by the cooperative                         for the failure to observe the time limit set by the
society 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer' (VBA) BA                    Commission. It thereby formulated a rule of law for
against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1997 by the                      which no support can be found in Regulation No 17/
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in                    62/EEC, in Regulation No 99/63/EEC, in the Treaty or
Case T-77/94 between, on the one hand, Vereniging van                     in the case-law and thus wrongly held the action to be
Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijprodukten, Florimex                       admissible .
BV, Inkoop Service Aalsmeer BV and M. Verhaar BV and,
on the other hand, the Commission of the European
Communities, supported by the cooperative society
      'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer' (VBA) BA                   — The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to find at
                                                                          the outset that Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty is not
                        ( Case C-266/97 P )                               applicable to the levying of various charges on direct
                           ( 97/C 318/07 )                                supplies ( the user fee ) and on supplies under the trade
                                                                          agreements . It thereby erred in law by limiting the
                                                                          scope of application of Article 85 ( 1 ) and wrongly
                                                                          applied that provision by assessing the different
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May                        charges in the context of that limitation of the Treaty.
1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-77/94 between, on the one hand,
Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerijproduk
ten, Florimex BV, Inkoop Service Aalsmeer BV and                       — In its judgment, specifically in paragraphs 116 to 119,
M. Verhaar BV and, on the other hand, the Commission                      the Court of First Instance uses a criterion as regards
of the European Communities, supported by the                             discrimination which is wrong in law, or errs in law in
cooperative society 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer'                 its application of that criterion, or at least gives an
( VBA ) BA, was brought before the Court of Justice of the                insufficient and, moreover, incomprehensible statement
European Communities on 19 July 1997 by the                               of reasons when it considers in paragraph 116
cooperative society 'Verenigde Bloemenveilingen Aalsmeer'                 that holders of trade agreements are privileged in
( VBA ) BA, represented by G. van der Wal, with an                        comparison with traders with whom the VBA has not
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                      entered into such contracts : the financial conditions
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue .                                                applied to holders of trade agreements must be
                                                                          regarded as a whole and cannot be confined merely to
                                                                          the charge on direct supplies .
The appellant claims that the Court should :
1 . declare the VBA's appeal against the judgment of the               — The Court of First Instance wrongly and, in the light
     Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  of the documents before it, incomprehensibly holds
     of 14 May 1997 in Case T-77/94 admissible;                           that the calculations submitted by the VBA, comparing
                                                                          the trade agreements with the user fee, have no
                                                                          relevance to the conclusion that holders of trade
2 . set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of              agreements are privileged because the user fee is not
     the European Communities of 14 May 1997 in Case                      levied on tenants ( paragraph 116 ). The Court appears
     T-77/94 and, ruling afresh, declare the action brought               expressly to have taken no account of the propositions
     by Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwekerij                  of either the VBA or the Commission, thus failing to
     produkten, Florimex BV, Inkoop Service Aalsmeer BV                   give a proper statement of its reasoning and erring in
                                                                          law.
     and M. Verhaar BV against the decision of
     20 December 1993 inadmissible and in any event
     dismiss it; and
                                                                       — The Court of First Instance wrongly, in paragraph 118 ,
                                                                          proceeds on the basis that it is not established that the
3 . order Vereniging van Groothandelaren in Bloemkwe                     holders of trade agreements have accepted obligations
     kerijprodukten, Florimex BV, Inkoop Service Aalsmeer                 vis-a-vis the VBA capable of justifying the difference
     BV and M. Verhaar BV jointly and severally to pay the                between the 3 % fee and the rate of the user fee and
     costs of both sets of proceedings in accordance with                 that the Commission therefore committed an error of
     Article 69 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure .
                                                                          fact or of assessment ( paragraph 119 ) in so far as it
                                                                          found that such obligations existed . The view taken by
                                                                          the Court is, in the light of the documents before it,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       clearly wrong and thus incomprehensible . It wrongly
                                                                          links a finding on the substance in Case T-77/94 to the
                                                                          finding that a claim relating to the statement of
— The       Court     of First Instance wrongly held,          at         reasons in Joined Cases T-70/92 and T-71 /92 is well
     paragraph 76, that the right to a fair hearing means                 founded .
     that the fact that the complainants exceeded the time
     limit set for responding to an Article 6 letter cannot
     lead to closure of the procedure on the complaints
     where special circumstances might legitimately account


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 4 December 1997 in Joined Cases C-253/96 to C-258/96 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm): Helmut Kampelmann and Others v. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe (Cases C-253/96 to C-256/96), Stadtwerke Witten GmbH v. Andreas Schade (Case C-257/96) and Klaus Haseley v. Stadtwerke Altena GmbH (Case C-258/96) (Obligation to inform employees - Directive 91/533/EEC - Article 2(2)(c))

text:
20.2.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 55/3
1. Ð By failing to designate waters needing protection               (Case C-258/96) Ð on the interpretation of Article 2(2)(c)
        or improvement in order to support shellfish life            of Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on
        and growth in accordance with Article 4 of                   an employer's obligation to inform employees of the
        Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October                   conditions applicable to the contract or employment
        1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters,            relationship (OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32) Ð the Court
                                                                     (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
                                                                     President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the
     Ð by failing to establish programmes in order to                Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O.
        reduce pollution in accordance with Article 5 of             Edward, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; G. Tesauro,
        Directive 79/923/EEC, and                                    Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,
                                                                     for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 December
                                                                     1997, in which it has ruled:
     Ð by failing to set values for the parameters listed at
        points 8 and 9 of the Annex to Directive 79/923/
        EEC other than for mercury and lead, in
        accordance with Article 3 of Directive 79/923/               1. The notification referred to in Article 2(1) of Council
        EEC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its               Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an
        obligations under Directive 79/923.                              employer's obligation to inform employees of the
                                                                         conditions applicable to the contract or employment
                                                                         relationship, in so far as it informs an employee of the
2. The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs.                     essential aspects of the contract or employment
                                                                         relationship and, in particular, of the points listed in
                                                                         Article 2(2)(c), enjoys the same presumption as to its
(1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
                                                                         correctness as would attach, in domestic law, to any
                                                                         similar document drawn up by the employer and
                                                                         communicated to the employee. The employer must
                                                                         none the less be allowed to bring any evidence to the
                                                                         contrary, by showing that the information in the
                                                                         notification is either inherently incorrect or has been
                                                                         shown to be so in fact.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 4 December 1997                              2. Individuals may rely on Article 2(2)(c) of Directive 91/
                                                                         533/EEC directly before the national courts as against
in Joined Cases C-253/96 to C-258/96 (references for a                   the State and any organisations or bodies which are
preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm):                  subject to the authority or control of the State or have
Helmut Kampelmann and Others v. Landschafts-                             special powers beyond those which result from the
verband Westfalen-Lippe (Cases C-253/96 to C-256/96),                    normal rules applicable to relations between
Stadtwerke Witten GmbH v. Andreas Schade (Case                           individuals, either where the State has failed to
C-257/96) and Klaus Haseley v. Stadtwerke Altena GmbH                    transpose the Directive into national law within the
                     (Case C-258/96) (1)                                 prescribed period or where it has not done so
                                                                         correctly. It is not open to a Member State to
(Obligation to inform employees Ð Directive 91/533/EEC                   transpose Article 2(2)(c)(ii) of the Directive in such a
                      Ð Article 2(2)(c))                                 way as to allow the employer, in every case, to confine
                         (98/C 55/04)                                    the information to be notified to the employee to a
                                                                         mere job designation.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                     3. Article 9(2) of the Directive, properly construed, does
                                                                         not preclude the Member States from exempting an
                                                                         employer from the obligation to give an employee
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                         written notification of the essential aspects of the
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                         contract or employment relationship, even at the
                                                                         employee's request, when those aspects are already set
                                                                         out in a document or contract of employment drawn
In Joined Cases C-253/96 to C-258/96: references to the                  up before the measures transposing the Directive
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the                        entered into force.
Landesarbeitsgericht (Regional Labour Court), Hamm,
Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Helmut Kampelmann                  (1) OJ C 294, 5.10.1996.
and Others and Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe
(Cases C-253/96 to C-256/96), between Stadtwerke
Witten GmbH and Andreas Schade (Case C-257/96) and
between Klaus Haseley and Stadtwerke Altena GmbH


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 15 May 1997 in Case C-250/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg): Futura Participations SA and Singer v. Administration des Contributions (Article 52 of the EEC Treaty - Freedom of establishment for companies - Taxation of a branch's income - Apportionment of income)

text:
No C 199/8           1 EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28 . 6 . 97
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         ( Fifth Chamber)                                                       of 15 May 1997
                          of 7 May 1997                                in Case C-250/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Conseil d'Etat du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg ):
in Case C-223/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling                  Futura Participations SA and Singer v. Administration des
from the Finanzgericht Hamburg ): A. Moksel AG v.                                               Contributions (M
               Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (')
                                                                       (Article 52 of the EEC Treaty — Freedom of
(Agriculture — Export refunds — Cattle imported from                   establishment for companies — Taxation of a branch 's
the former German Democratic Republic into the Federal                             income — Apportionment of income)
Republic of Germany under the transit procedure —
Impact of German reunification on the origin and status                                            ( 97/C 199/14 )
                  of goods in free circulation)
                           ( 97/C 199/ 13 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: German)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                     In Case C-250/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Conseil d'Etat du Grand-Duche
                                                                       de Luxembourg for a preliminary ruling in the
In Case C-223/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177            proceedings pending before that court between ( 1 ) Futura
of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht ( Finance Court),              Participations SA and ( 2 ) Singer and Administration des
Hamburg, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                   Contributions — on the interpretation of Article 52 of the
pending before that court between A. Moksel AG and                     EEC Treaty — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — on the interpretation of                  Iglesias, President, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L.
Article 8 ( 1 ) of Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 3665/              Murray and L. Sevon, Presidents of the Chamber, P. J. G.
87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed                     Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ), J.
rules for the application of the system of export refunds              P. Puissochet, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R.
on agricultural products ( OJ No L 351 , 14 . 12 . 1987, p. 1 )        Schintgen, Judges; C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; H. von
in conjunction with Article 9 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty —                 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on
the Court ( Fifth Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho                15 May 1997, in which it has ruled :
de Almeida , President of the Chamber, L. Sevon
 ( Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, J. -P. Puissochet and M.
Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl ,
                                                                       Article 52 of the EC Treaty does not preclude a Member
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                State from making the carrying forward of previous losses,
judgment on 7 May 1997, in which it has ruled :                        requested by a taxpayer which has a branch in its territory
                                                                        but is not resident there, subject to the condition that the
                                                                        losses must be economically related to the income earned
Article 8 (1 ) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/                  by the taxpayer in that State, provided that resident
 87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed                     taxpayers do not receive more favourable treatment. On
 rules for the application of the system of export refunds              the other hand, that Article does preclude the carrying
 on agricultural products, in conjunction with Article 9 (2)           forward of losses from being made subject to the
 of the EC Treaty, are to be interpreted as meaning that                condition that, in the year in which the losses were
products obtained from the slaughter of cattle are neither              incurred, the taxpayer must have kept and held in that
 of Community origin nor in free circulation within the                 State accounts relating to his activities carried on there
 territory of the Community and do not therefore qualify                which comply with the relevant national rules. The
 for export refunds if, before 3 October 1990, the date of              Member State concerned may, however, require the non
 German reunification, they were exported from the former               resident taxpayer to demonstrate clearly and precisely that
 GDR, following completion of customs export formalities                the amount of the losses which he claims to have incurred
 in that country and the grant of export refunds, and                   corresponds, under its domestic rules governing the
 imported into the Federal Republic of Germany under the                calculation of income and losses which were applicable in
 transit and warehousing procedure with a view to being                 the financial year concerned, to the amount of the losses
 re-exported to a third country.                                        actually incurred in that State by the taxpayer.
 O OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .                                         (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .


title: Case T-489/15: Action brought on 26 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHMI — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SNAP)

text:
               12.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 337/43

         Action brought on 26 August 2015 — LG Electronics v OHMI — Cyrus Wellness Consulting (VIEWTY SNAP)
   (Case T-489/15)
   (2015/C 337/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: LG Electronics, Inc. (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cyrus Wellness Consulting (Berlin, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘VIEWTY SNAP’ — Application for Registration No 9 125 055

      Procedure before OHIM:Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision:Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2015 in Case R 1938/2014-2

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

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


title: Action brought on 13 March 1997 by Martin Neumann and Irmgard Neumann-Schölles against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-68/97)

text:
 31 . 5 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 166/ 15
Instance of the European Communities on 10 March 1997                        cannot in any event qualify for a new aid scheme,
by Societe Generale, established in Paris, represented by                    having regard to the aid already received by it in the
Dominique Voillemot, of the Paris Bar, with an address for                   past,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen,
67 Rue Ermesinde .                                                     — the Commission has infringed the provisions of
                                                                             Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty and the Guidelines
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                  by authorizing emergency aid on terms which are
                                                                             contrary to those invariably imposed in respect of
                                                                             rescue aid, inasmuch as it:
— annul the decision of the Commission, published in
      the Official Journal of 24 December 1996, authorizing                  — does not consist of liquidity help in the form of
      the grant by the French authorities of emergency aid                       loan guarantees or repayable loans bearing normal
      to Credit Lyonnais,                                                        commercial interest rates,
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs and                           — is not restricted to the amount needed to keep
      expenses incurred in the course of the present                             Credit Lyonnais in business,
      proceedings.                                                           — is paid for a particularly lengthy and unjustified
                                                                                period,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                             — is not warranted on the grounds of serious social
                                                                                difficulties .
The applicant, which is already challenging the decision of
the Commission of 26 July 1995 giving conditional
approval to the aid granted by France to Credit                        (') Case T-32/96 ( OJ No C 133 , 4 . 5 . 1996 , p. 31 ).
                                                                       (2 ) OJ No C 390 , 24 . 12 . 1996 , p. 7.
Lyonnais ( J ), is seeking, in the present case, annulment of
the Commission's decision to raise no objection to the
emergency aid granted in September 1996 (2). It maintains
that :
— the Commission has infringed the provisions of                       Action brought on 13 March 1997 by Martin Neumann
      Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty and of its decision of         and Irmgard Neumann-Scholles against the Commission
      26 July 1995 by failing to declare illegal , on the                                of the European Communities
      ground of notification out of time, the emergency aid
                                                                                ( Case T-68/97)
      granted and, more particularly, the non-introduction
      of the operation by which EPFR was to invest FF                                                ( 97/C 166/34
      10 000 million in zero coupon bonds,
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
— the Commission has infringed the provisions of
      Article 92 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty, of the ' Community           An action against the Commission of the European
     guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring            Communities was brought before the Court of First
      firms in difficulty' ('the Guidelines') issued for the          Instance of the European Communities on 13 March 1997
      implementation thereof and of its decision of 26 July            by Martin Neumann and Irmgard Neumann-Scholles,
      1995 , by authorizing the grant of additional aid to            resident in Karlsruhe, Germany, represented by Bernd
      Credit Lyonnais which aggravates the incompatibility            Potthast and Hans-Josef Ruber, Rechtsanwalte, Cologne,
     with the common market of the aid authorized on                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      26 July 1995 . The emergency aid authorized:                     Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
     — does not contribute to the development of any                  The applicants claim that the Court should :
           sector of activity,
                                                                      — order the Commission to pay the first applicant,
     — does       not     take   the  common      interest  into            Martin Neumann, an orphan's pension pursuant to
          consideration,                                                    Article 80 of the Staff Regulations;
     — reinforces the significance of the aid authorized on           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
          26 July 1995 , the amount of which and the need
           for which are questionable, and which was                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
          granted, moreover, in the absence of any real
          restructuring plan or adequate countermeasures to           The second applicant, an official at the European Institute
          remedy the serious distortion of competition                for Transuranium Elements in Karlsruhe whose second
          resulting therefrom,                                        marriage was to a Commission official who died in 1992,
                                                                      applied for a survivor's pension for both herself and her
— the Commission has infringed the provisions of                      son from her first marriage, the first applicant. The first
     Article 92 ( 3 ) (c ) of the EC Treaty and the Guidelines        applicant lived in the household of Mr and Mrs Scholles
      by authorizing emergency aid allowing Credit                    between 1982 and 1990 and was maintained by them
      Lyonnais to continue its activities whilst awaiting the         jointly, as he was during his studies which were completed
     grant of fresh aid, notwithstandig that Credit Lyonnais          in 1995 . The natural father of the first applicant and
 ---pagebreak--- No C 166/16          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     31 . 5 . 97
divorced husband of the second applicant never paid                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
maintenance to the first applicant and he died without
means in 1996 .
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
By a letter of 22 June 1995 , the appointing authority
refused, by reference to Article 17 of Annex VIII to the            The contested decisions relate to the          final   decisions
Staff Regulations, to pay a widow 's pension to the second          approving the final payment claim relating to the
applicant, since the marriage to her second husband had             applications Nos 88131 1P1 and 880249P3 for financial
lasted less than a year and none of the exceptions in the           assistance from the European Social Fund submitted by
second paragraph of Article 17 applied. By a letter of              the applicant. By means of those decisions, the
20 March 1996, payment of an orphan 's pension to the               Commission decided to reduce the amount approved by
first applicant was finally also refused, because the               way of decision No C(88 ) 0831 /29.04.88 relating to the
conditions in Article 80 of the Staff Regulations were not          grant to the now applicant of assistance to finance
satisfied .                                                         vocational training operations in Portugal .
In the application, the claim of the first applicant to an          The application is based on the following allegations:
orphan 's pension is founded, first, on the first paragraph
of Article 80 of the Staff Regulations, the argument
essentially being that the term ' orphans' pension' is used         — the      decisions  of  the    Commission      are   unlawful
in that paragraph simply because, on the death of an                    inasmuch as they are contrary to Community law, in
official, sums of money are paid to a child actually                    particular Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October
maintained by that official . It is not orphans but                     1983 on the tasks of the ESF, Council Regulation
dependent children who thereby receive an orphan's                      ( EEC ) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on the
pension .                                                               implementation of that decision and Commission
                                                                        Decision 83/673/EEC on the management of the ESF,
Secondly, the second, third and fourth paragraphs of
Article 80 of the Staff Regulations show that it is not             — the decisions are unfair because they run counter to
necessary for the child to have lost both parents.                      the rights and interests of the applicant which are
                                                                        already judicially protected by and derive from the
Nor can the Commission rely on Article 21 of Annex VIII                 initial Commission decision approving the applications
to the Staff Regulations, since the first paragraph thereof             and from the certificates issued by the Departamento
refers to an 'orphan'. If the legislature understood thereby            para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu (Dafse )
only children who had lost both parents, Article 21 would               immediately thereafter in accordance therewith,
be self-contradictory.
                                                                    — the two decisions are contradictory in so far as,
                                                                        despite the applicant's having implemented the
                                                                        operations, a matter which was not called in question
                                                                        at the time or now, they order the repayment of
                                                                        amounts received more than seven years previously
Action brought on 27 March 1997 by Proderec — Forma                    which     have   been   disbursed     in  the    course     of
gao e Desenvolvimento de Recursos Humanos, ACE,                         implementing the two operations and as a result of
   against the Commission of the European Communities                   them,
                       ( Case T-72/97)
                         ( 971C 166/35 )                            — they are, moreover, contradictory with other decisions
                                                                        taken previously and they completely change
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                         presumptions of fact and of law on which the
                                                                         operations were approved and implemented,
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   — the decisions are fundamentally unfair inasmuch as
Instance of the European Communities on 27 March 1997                    they breach the principles of equal treatment, sound
by Proderec — Forma^ao e Desenvolvimento de Recursos                     administration and impartiality,
Humanos, ACE, whose registered office is at Av. 25 de
Abril, n? 7-B, S/loja , Almada, represented by Manuel
Rodrigues, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service           — finally, the decisions are unfounded in so far as they
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luisa Maria Miranda                     are contrary to the certificates issued by Dafse in 1990
Sousa Pires, 4A Rue Jearv Jaures, Luxembourg L-1836 .                    and that only such certification is valid inasmuch as it
                                                                         was effected within the 13-month time-limit, are in
                                                                         accordance with the conditions laid down in the
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         Community regulation and may not be unilaterally
                                                                         revoked,
— annul the Commission's decision of 9 December on
     file 880249P3 , and the Commission's decision of
     9 December on file         881311P1 , notified to the           — the two decisions alter, modify and undermine the
     applicant on 28 January 1997,                                       criteria underlying the initial decision of approval by


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 26 September 1996 in Case C-302/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof, The Hague): Étienne Debouche v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Value added tax - Interpretation of Article 17 (2) and (3) (a) of Directive 77/388/EEC and of Article 3 (b) and the first paragraph of Article 5 of Directive 79/1072/EEC - Refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country)

text:
No C 354/6             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                            23 . 11 . 96
 ( EEC ) No 1384/77 of 27 June 1977 ( OJ No L 157, 1977,              relating to turnover taxes — common system of value added
 p. 16 ), and on the validity of Commission Regulation ( EEC )        tax : uniform basis of assessment ( OJ No L 145 , 1977, p. 1 )
 No 1121 /87 of 23 April 1987 amending Regulations ( EEC )            and of Article 3 ( b ) and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the
 No 612/77 and ( EEC ) No 1 1 36/79 as regards the release of         eighth Council Directive 79/ 1072/EEC of 6 December 1979
 the security for certain special import arrangements in the          on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States
 beef and veal sector ( OJ No L 109 , 1987, p. 12 ) — the Court       relating to turnover taxes — arrangements for the refund of
 ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris                       value added tax to taxable persons not established in the
 ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch and              territory of the country ( OJ No L 331 , 1979 , p. 11 ), the
 G. F. Mancini, Judges ; P. Leger, Advocate-General; H. von           Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ,
 Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a           President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch ( Rapporteur ) and
 judgment on 17 September 1996 , in which it rules :                  P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate-General ;
                                                                      H. A. Riihl , Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
 1 . Article 2 (d) of Council Directive 79/623/EEC of                 given a judgment on 26 September 1996 in which it
                                                                      rules :
      25 June 1979 on the harmonization of provisions laid
      down by law, regulation or administrative action
      relating to customs debt has direct effect and confers on       Article 3 (b) of the eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC,
      individuals rights which they may assert against a              of 6 December 1979, on the harmonization of the laws of
      Member State which has failed to transpose the directive        the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
      into national law, and which the national courts must           arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable
      safeguard.                                                      persons not established in the territory of the country, is to
                                                                      be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a lawyer
2 . Article 2 (d) of Directive 79/623/EEC is also applicable          benefits, pursuant to Article 28 (3) (b) of the sixth Council
      where Commission Regulation (EEC) No 612/77 of                  Directive 77/388/EEC, of 17 May 1977, on the
      24 March 1 977 laying down rules for the application of         harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
      the special import arrangements in respect of certain           turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:
      young male bovine animals for fattening, as amended by          uniform basis of assessment, and Annex F thereto, from an
      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1384/77 of 27 June               exemption in the Member State in which he is established
      1977, is infringed.                                             does not entitle him to request the competent authorities of
                                                                      that Member State to issue the certificate mentioned therein
                                                                      and he is not, accordingly, entitled to a refund of the VAT
C ) OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
     OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                      charged on services supplied to him in a Member State in
                                                                      which he is not established and in which services supplied by
                                                                      lawyers are not exempted.
                                                                      (') OJ No C 178 , 30 . 6 . 1993 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        ( Sixth Chamber )
                     of 26 September 1996                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-302/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    ( Fourth Chamber )
the Gerechtshof, The Hague ): Etienne Debouche v.                                          of 26 September 1996
         Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (')
                                                                     in Case C-230/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Value added tax — Interpretation ofArticle 1 7 (2) and (3)          the      Bundesfinanzhof):      Renate      Enkler     v.     Finanzamt
(a) ofDirective 77/388/EEC and ofArticle 3 (b) and the first                                      Homburg ( 1 )
paragraph ofArticle 5 ofDirective 79/1 072/EEC — Refund
of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the          (Sixth VAT Directive — Definition of economic activity —
                                                                                Taxable amount)
                    territory of the country)
                                                                                96/C 354/ 11 )
                          ( 96/C 354/ 10 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                   published in the European Court Reports)
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     In Case C-230/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177
In Case C-302/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177          of the EC Treaty from the Bundesfinanzhof [Federal Finance
of the EEC Treaty from the Gerechtshof [ Regional Court of           Court, Germany] for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Appeal], The Hague ( Netherlands ) for a preliminary ruling          pending before that court between Renate Enkler and
in the proceedings pending before that court between                 Finanzamt ( Tax Office ) Homburg on the interpretation of
Etienne Debouche and Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en                 Articles 4(1 ) and ( 2 ), 6 ( 2 ) ( a ) and 11 A ( 1 ) ( c ) of the sixth
Accijnzen on the interpretation of Articles 17 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) ( a ) Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977 on the
of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977             harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States                turnover taxes — common system of value added tax:


title: Case C-153/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the investigating judge at the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Turnhout, by order of 13 April 2000 in criminal proceedings against P. der Weduwe

text:
C 192/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            8.7.2000
     — Article 2 of Directive 89/369/EEC (1), inasmuch as the            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
          three plants are operating without any authorisation           the Court should:
          having been issued for that purpose;
                                                                         (1) declare that, by failing to bring into force and to communi-
     — Article 6 of Directive 89/369/EEC, inasmuch as, with                   cate to the Commission within the prescribed time-limit
          regard to the said plants, the competent authorities                the national measures necessary in order to transpose
                                                                              Articles 4(2), 6(1), (3) and (4), 7, 8(2), (3), (4) and (6), 11(2)
          — have not taken the periodic measurements in                       and 12 of Directive 97/66/EC (1), the French Republic has
              relation to the parameters prescribed by that article;          failed to comply with its obligations under Article 15 of
                                                                              the said directive;
          — have not given prior authorisation for the sampling
              and measurement procedures or determined the               (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
              location of the measurement points concerned;
          — have not laid down any measurement programme;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
     — Article 7 of Directive 89/369/EEC, inasmuch as the
          three plants are not equipped with auxiliary burners           The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
          enabling a minimum combustion temperature of 850°              of Article 249 EC and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC is
          to be guaranteed, particularly during start-up and shut-       such as to oblige Member States to adopt the measures
          down operations,                                               necessary in order to transpose directives into their national
                                                                         legal order within the time-limit prescribed therein. The time-
     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations           limit fixed in Article 15(1) of the directive at issue in the
     under Directive 89/369/EEC;                                         present case expired on 24 October 1998 but France has not
                                                                         adopted the measures necessary to transpose the provisions of
(2) order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                         the articles referred to above.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (1) Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                             concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of
                                                                             privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998,
Although the mandatory start-up authorisation had not been                   p. 1).
given, the automatic incineration plants located at Mazo and
Barlovento started to operate in January 1992; consequently,
Directive 89/369/EEC must be regarded as applicable to the
present case. In its letter of 3 February 1999 forwarding
information provided by the Consejerı́a de Industria y Comer-
cio (Ministry of Industry and Commerce) of the Government
of the Canaries, the Spanish Government acknowledged the
non-compliance indicated above.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the investigating
                                                                         judge at the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Turnhout, by
(1) Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention
    of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants (OJ
                                                                         order of 13 April 2000 in criminal proceedings against
    L 163 of 14.6.1989, p. 32).                                                                     P. der Weduwe
                                                                                (Case C-153/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 192/15)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                         European Communities by order of 13 April 2000 by the
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                         investigating judge at the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, (First
                                                                         Instance Court), Turnhout which was received at the Court
                          (Case C-151/00)                                Registry on 25 April 2000, in criminal proceedings against
                                                                         P. der Weduwe for a preliminary ruling on the following
                          (2000/C 192/14)                                questions:
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             Where a credit institution authorised in a Member State in
Court of Justice on 19 April 2000 by the Commission of the               which breaches of banking secrecy are a criminal offence
European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin, of its              operates, under the freedom to provide services, in another
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in           Member State where there is no analogous banking secrecy,
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its             must Article 49 EC (formerly Article 59 of the EC Treaty) be
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                 interpreted:
 ---pagebreak--- 8.7.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 192/9
1. As not precluding a legislative provision of the host                The applicant claims that the Court should:
    Member State pursuant to which employees of the credit
    institution concerned are required to give evidence as              (1) declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
    witnesses in criminal proceedings concerning services pro-              in order to comply with the obligations laid down in
    vided by them, under the freedom to provide services, in                Article 5(4)(a) and point 2 in Annex III to Council Directive
    the territory of the host Member State in circumstances in              91/676/EEC (1) of 12 December 1991 concerning the
    which employees of credit institutions of the host Member               protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates
    State are under a like obligation to give evidence as                   from agricultural sources, the Federal Republic of Germany
    witnesses;                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2. As not precluding a legislative provision of the host                (2) order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
    Member State pursuant to which employees of the credit
    institution concerned who, when interviewed as suspects,
    choose not to rely on their right to remain silent, may             Pleas in law and main arguments
    as suspects make a statement in criminal proceedings
    concerning services provided by them, under the freedom             Article 5(1) of Directive 91/676/EEC prescribes, in conjunction
    to provide services, in the territory of the host Member            with Annex III, maximum amounts, for each farm or livestock
    State in circumstances in which employees of credit                 unit, of manure to be applied to the land per hectare and per
    institutions established in the host Member State have the          year. Under the German provisions (Paragraphs 2(1) and 4(5)
    same right to make a statement as suspects, where they do           of the Düngeverordnung (Manure Regulation)), regard may be
    not or do not wish to rely on their right to remain silent;         had, within specified parameters, to ‘unavoidable production
                                                                        losses’ in the case of farm manure originating from animals
3. As precluding a legislative provision of the Member State            and to ‘storage losses’ in the case of liquid manure and slurry.
    of origin pursuant to which employees of the credit                 As a result, between 10 % and 20 % of the total quantities of
    institution concerned may be rendered criminally and                nitrogen are regarded as ‘normal’ losses arising from volatisa-
    civilly liable if, in the context of a criminal investigation       tion, and no regard is had to the fact that, to a large extent,
    conducted in a host Member State (see points 1 and 2) (in           those quantities of nitrogen escape into the air and then settle
    this case Belgium), they give evidence concerning services          once again on the ground and on expanses of water, thereby
    provided by them in the territory of the host Member State          contributing to water pollution.
    under the freedom to provide services;
                                                                        The maximum quantities laid down in the directive must apply
4. As precluding a legislative provision of the Member State            uniformly throughout the Community. Following discussions,
    of origin pursuant to which employees of the credit                 the Commission once again referred the question of interpret-
    institution concerned may be rendered criminally and                ation to the committee provided for in Article 9 of the
    civilly liable if, in the context of a criminal investigation       directive, and confirmed in written communications to the
    conducted in a host Member State (see points 1 and 2) (in           Federal Republic of Germany, Austria and Luxembourg that
    this case Belgium), they make a statement as suspects               the quantities specified in point 2 of Annex III to the directive
    concerning services provided by them in the territory of            are to be regarded as quantities of manure ex storage.
    the host Member State (in this case Belgium) under the
    freedom to provide services, whilst at the same time not
    relying or not wishing to rely on the right to remain silent?       (1) OJ L 375 of 31.12.1991, p. 1.
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Action brought on 27 April 2000 by the Commission of                    Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, by
the European Communities against the Federal Republic                   order of that court of 1 March 2000, in the case of Katia
                            of Germany                                     Beckman against Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd
                          (Case C-161/00)                                                         (Case C-164/00)
                          (2000/C 192/16)                                                         (2000/C 192/17)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-            European Communities by an order of the High Court of
ties on 27 April 2000 by the Commission of the European                 Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, of 1 March
Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser,             2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 May
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Katia Beckman
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre           against Dynamco Whicheloe Macfarlane Ltd, on the following
C 254, Kirchberg.                                                       questions:


title: Case T-376/14: Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Yassin v Council

text:
               10.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 165/20

         Order of the General Court of 21 March 2016 — Yassin v Council
   (Case T-376/14) (1)

   (2016/C 165/24)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 245, 28.7.2014.


title: Case T-219/99: Action brought on 1 October 1999 by British Airways PLC against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
22.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 20/21
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Procedure of the European Parliament (OJ 1999 L 202, p. 1)
                                                                          — the President of the Court of First Instance has made an
                        of 8 October 1999                                 order on 25 November 1999, the operative part of which is as
                                                                          follows:
   in Case T-89/99: Oliver Valk v European Parliament (1)
                                                                          1. Implementation of the measure of the European Parliament of
(Official — Period within which an action must be brought                     14 September 1999, by which the Parliament adopted the
                  — Manifest inadmissibility)                                 interpretation of Rule 29 of its Rules of Procedure proposed by
                                                                              the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, is suspended;
                          (2000/C 20/42)
                                                                          2. The costs are reserved.
                   (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-89/99: Oliver Valk, resident in Berlin, represented
by Joachim Kayser, Rechtsanwalt, Körnerstrasse 5, 10785
Berlin, v European Parliament (Agents: Hans Krück and Evelyn
Waldherr) — application for annulment of the decision of the
selection board in Competition PE/86/A refusing to admit the
applicant to the written tests in that competition and                    Action brought on 1 October 1999 by British Airways
requesting that the applicant be allowed to take part in that             PLC against the Commission of the European Communi-
competition — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),                                               ties
composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras;
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an order on 8 October
1999, the operative part of which is as follows:                                                   (Case T-219/99)
1. The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible;
                                                                                (2000/C 20/44)
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
(1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.                                                                    (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 1 October 1999 by British Airways
                                                                          PLC, represented by William Wood QC and Helen Davies, of
                                                                          Brick Court Chambers, London, and William Allan and Oliver
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                              Black, of Linklaters, Solicitors, London, with an address for
                            INSTANCE                                      service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître Marc Loesch,
                                                                          11 Rue Goethe, Luxembourg.
                      of 25 November 1999
in Case T-222/99 R: Jean-Claude Martinez and Charles de                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                 Gaulle v European Parliament
                                                                          — annul the contested decision in its entirety;
(Application for the adoption of interim measures —
Measure of the Parliament interpreting a provision in its                 — order the Commission to pay the costs.
own Rules of Procedure — Political group — Admissibility
  — Prima facie case — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (2000/C 20/43)
                                                                          The primary relief sought is the annulment of the Com-
                    (Language of the case: French)                        mission’s Decision declaring that since 1992 the applicant
                                                                          (BA) has infringed Article 82 EC by operating systems of
In Case T-222/99 R: Jean-Claude Martinez, residing in Montpel-            commission and other incentives with the travel agents from
lier (France), and Charles de Gaulle, residing in Paris, represent-       whom it purchases air travel agency services in the United
ed by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar, 2 Rue de la                       Kingdom, systems which, by rewarding loyalty from the travel
Poissonnerie, Nice (France), v European Parliament (Agents:               agents and by discriminating between travel agents, have the
Gregorio Garzón Clariana, Johann Schoo and Hans Krück) —                 object and effect of excluding BA’s competitors from the UK
application for suspension of implementation of the decision              air transport market. Article 2 of the contested Decision
of the European Parliament dated 14 September 1999 con-                   imposed on BA a fine of £ 6,8 million for the alleged
cerning the interpretation of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of                  infringements.
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/22                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22.1.2000
The application is made on the following grounds:                       the Middle Temple, by Messrs Ferdinard Kelly, 21 Bennets Hill,
                                                                        Birmingham, B2 5QP, United Kingdom.
— The Commission, having resigned en masse, is only author-
    ised to handle current business, which does not include
    the Decision;                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
— The Decision was adopted under Regulation No 17 and
    should have been adopted (if adopted at all) under                  — annul the decision of the Commission in Case
    Regulation No 3975/87. This breach of an essential pro-                 IV/35.992/F3 — Scottish and Newcastle dated 16 June
    cedural requirement deprived BA of the procedural safe-                 1999;
    guards to which it was entitled. Moreover, in so far as the
    Decision affects routes between the United Kingdom and              — declare that the Commission is required under Article 233
    third countries, it is outside the powers of the Commission;            of the Treaty establishing the European Communities to
                                                                            take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment
— The Commission acted against BA alone, whereas all                        to be delivered;
    the European Airlines engaged in substantially similar
    practices;
                                                                        — order the Commission to pay the costs of this application.
— The requisite nexus between the alleged market in which
    the Commission maintains that the abuse has occurred
    and the markets in which the Commission maintains that
    the harmful effects of such abuse are felt is lacking and           Pleas in law and main arguments
    therefore Article 82 cannot apply;
— The market in air travel agency services cannot be regarded           The applicant states that on 13 January 1998, pursuant to
    as the relevant product market in the present case. BA              Article 19(3) of Regulation No 17/62 the Commission gave
    submits that the appropriate market definition is the route         notice (1) that it intended to take a favourable position in
    or set of routes distributed through the travel agent.              respect of certain agreements notified to the Commission by
    Furthermore, the relevant geographic market is not, as the          Scottish and Newcastle PLC, by granting retroactive exemption
    Commission maintains, the UK, but is broader;                       pursuant to Article 81(3) EC. The agreements in question were
                                                                        the standard forms of leases, the subject of each of the leases
— Even if the relevant market is correctly identified, BA               being a fully fitted-out, on-licensed public house in United
    cannot been considered as being dominant in the market,             Kingdom with a tie for beer. Before taking a final decision on
    because it cannot act independently of its suppliers,               this matter, the Commission invited all interested parties to
    competitors or customers;                                           submit their observations.
— Even if BA were dominant in a properly-defined relevant
    market, its incentive agreements would not constitute an            On 12 March 1999, the applicant submitted observations
    abuse of its dominant position.                                     together with an expert’s report to the Commission. By the
                                                                        said observations objection was made to the proposal to grant
                                                                        Scottish and Newcastle retroactive or any exemption.
                                                                        On 16 June 1999, the Commission took a Decision relating to
                                                                        a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case
                                                                        IV/35.992/F3 — Scottish and Newcastle) (the contested
                                                                        decision) (2). In its decision the Commission, overriding the
Action brought on 12 October 1999 by Margaret Mary                      objections made in the said observations, granted Scottish and
McKenzie Campbell against the Commission of the Euro-                   Newcastle retroactive exemption to the notified agreements
                       pean Communities                                 commencing on 1 January 1985 until 31 December 2002.
                         (Case T-232/99)
                                                                        The applicant seeks relief from the Court of First Instance on
                                                                        the grounds that in granting exemption to the notified
                          (2000/C 20/45)                                agreements the Commission:
                  (Language of the case: English)                       (a) failed properly to evaluate the facts and law which establish
                                                                            that the notified agreements do not fulfil the conditions of
                                                                            Article 81(3);
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 October 1999 by Margaret                     (b) failed to give adequate reasons for its decision that the
Mary McKenzie Campbell, represented by Becket Bedford, of                   notified agreements fulfil the conditions of Article 81(3);


title: Case T-369/07: Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Republic of Latvia v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/66

         Action brought on 26 September 2007 — Republic of Latvia v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-369/07)
   (2007/C 269/121)
   Language of the case: Latvian
   Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Latvia (represented by: E. Balode-Buraka, K. Bārdiņa)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Commission Decision C(2007) 3409, of 13 July 2007, on the amendment of the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Latvia under Article 3(3) of Commission Decision C/2006/5612 (final), of 29 November 2006, on the national plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by Latvia under European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87/EC (1).

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

               —

               Adjudicate under an expedited procedure.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant submits that, by interpreting very widely the rights conferred by Article 9(3) of Commission Directive 2003/87/EC, the Commission has significantly restricted the sovereign rights of the Republic of Latvia in relation to energy, in particular, as regards its choice of energy sources and as regards the supply of electrical energy, thus disregarding the powers set out in Article 175(2)(c) of the EC Treaty.
   Similarly, the applicant submits that the Commission has infringed the principle of non-discrimination, in that the application of the method of calculation devised by it to determine the total volume of greenhouse gas emissions allowed disadvantages the Member States with low total emissions.
   The applicant also submits that the first criterion of Annex III of Directive 2003/87 has been infringed in that the Commission, when adopting the decision, did not take account of the international obligations of the Republic of Latvia under the Kyoto Agreement.
   Finally, it submits that the Decision was adopted in breach of essential procedural requirements in that the time limit for rejection of the plan set by Article 9(3) of Directive 2003/87 was not respected.

      (1)  Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32).


title: Case F-29/06: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Arnaldos Rosauro and Others v Commission (Staff case — Officials — Appointment — Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations — Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 — Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 — Grading — Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 — Loss of promotion points)

text:
               19.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 340/34

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 26 September 2011 — Arnaldos Rosauro and Others v Commission
   (Case F-29/06) (1)

   (Staff case - Officials - Appointment - Article 5(2) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations - Internal competitions for transfer from one category to another published before 1 May 2004 - Candidates appearing on reserve lists before 1 May 2006 - Grading - Application of a multiplication factor of less than 1 - Loss of promotion points)
   2011/C 340/66
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Andres Arnaldos Rosauro and Others (Brussels, Belgium) (represented, initially, by S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, subsequently by S. Rodrigues, and, finally, by S. Rodrigues, A. Blot and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of Commission decisions appointing the applicants, officials in Category C and successful candidates in an internal competition for change of category, in Grades B*3/B*4, maintaining their remuneration at the level prior to the change of category by applying a multiplying coeffficient, and resetting their promotion points at zero.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 121 of 20.05.06, p. 19.


title: Action brought on 3 July 1995 by Industria del Frío Auxiliar Conservera SA against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-136/95)

text:
No C 229/24            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
Action brought on 3 July 1995 by Industria del Frio Auxiliar            effect is to modify a situation existing at a specified date,
Conservera SA against the Commission of the European                    date which in any event is that of publication of the
                           Communities                                  measure .
                        ( Case T-136/95 )
                          ( 95/C 229/52 )                               With regard to the claim for compensation, the applicant
                                                                        stresses that it seeks compensation for the loss and harm it
                                                                        has suffered as a consequence of the Commission's act, the
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                         retroactive effects of which infringe sufficiently clearly
                                                                        superior rules of law which protect the applicant's interests,
                                                                        the amount to be increased by appropriate legal interest.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 3 July 1995 by
Industria del Frio Auxiliar Conservera SA, whose registered
office is in Bermeo ( Spain ), represented by Ignacio
Saenz-Cortabarria Fernandez and Marta Morales Isasi,
both of the Vizcaya Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8—10 Rue
Mathias Hardt,                                                          Action brought on 3 July 1995 by Paolo Mozzaglia against
                                                                                the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-137/95 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                ( 95/C 229/53 )
— annul Commission Decision 95/119/EC of 7 April 1995
    concerning certain protective measures with regard to                                 (Language of the case: Italian)
    fishery products originating in Japan in so far as it affects
    products in transit to the Community,
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
— order the European Community to compensate the                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
     applicant for loss and damage resulting from the                   Instance of the European Communities on 3 July 1995 by
     unlawful application of Commission Decision                        Paolo Mozzaglia, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, a
     95/ 119/EC of 7 April 1995 and fix the amount at Pta                Counsel before the Court of Cassation of the Italian
     18 396 133 pending subsequent settlement based on the              Republic, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     sale price of 50 tonnes of frozen 'alalunga ' tuna in Puerto        Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8— 10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
     Rico, or at least in the amount that the Court consider
     appropriate, increased by statutory interest at the rate of
     9 % and default interest from the date of lodging this              The applicant claims that the Court ahould:
     application,
                                                                         — annul the refusal of the Commission to pay installation
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                       and daily allowances to the applicant and to reimburse
                                                                               travelling expenses to his place of employment,
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     — declare the above payments owing to the applicant,
                                                                               together with interest at 8 % from the date of the claim
 The applicant claims, first, that the contested decision                      until the date of actual payment,
 prejudices his rights in so far as it infringes general principles
 of Community law, in particular the principles of legal                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 certainty and non-retroactivity of laws, protection of
 legitimate expectations, proportionality and equal
 treatment, in not excluding from its scope goods in transit to
 the Community when it entered into force. The applicant                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 claims, secondly, that the Commission has not complied
 with its obligation under Article 190 of the EC Treaty to               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
 state reasons for its acts, since the contested decision                Case T-33/95 ( J ).
 contains a series of contradictions which obscure the real
 reasons which led it to apply the decision retroactively. The
 applicant pleads, finally, abuse of power, claiming that the            i 1 ) OJ No C 101 , 22 . 4 . 1995 , p . 14.
 Commission was not empowered by the Council to apply to
 fishery products originating in Japan a measure prohibiting
 import with retroactive effect since, on the basis of Directive
 90/675 , the Commission may only adopt measures whose