title: Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against TVR-Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA (Case C-41/98)

text:
2.5.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 137/7
decided to terminate the contract, governed by Italian law,        gerichtshof (Administrative Court), Vienna, of 21 January
on the ground of breach of contract by the defendant.              1998, received at the Court Registry on 19 February
                                                                   1998, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Johann
                                                                   Seemeier and Jörg Schreiber against the Unabhängiger
                                                                   Verwaltungssenat des Landes Salzburg (Independent
                                                                   Administrative Board for the Land of Salzburg) and Jörg
                                                                   Schreiber against the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für
Action brought on 18 February 1998 by the Commission               Kärnten     (Independent     Administrative     Board     for
of the European Communities against TVR-Tecnologie                 Carinthia),    additional    party:   Bundesminister      für
                        Vetroresina SpA                            Wissenschaft und Verkehr (Federal Minister for Science
                                                                   and Transport), on the following question:
                        (Case C-41/98)
                         (98/C 137/14)
                                                                   are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
An action against TVR-Tecnologie Vetroresina SpA, whose            freedom of movement of goods) and the other provisions
registered office is in Rome, was brought before the Court         of applicable Community law to be interpreted as
of Justice of the European Communities on 18 February              preventing a Member State from restricting the transport
1998 by the Commission of the European Communities,                of animals for slaughter in that animals may be
represented by Eugenio de March, Legal Adviser, assited            transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable
by Alberto Dal Ferro, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address          abattoir in that State, and may be transported for
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez            slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                              regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are
                                                                   observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in
                                                                   calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of
                                                                   the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway?
Ð order the defendant to repay ECU 77 558,80 together
    with interest, from 1 February 1990 until payment is
    actually made, at a rate of ECU 24,97 per day,
Ð order the defendant to pay to the Commission ECU
    7 700, or any other amount which the Court might
    deem equitable, by way of compensation for damage,
                                                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patents Court) by order of
                                                                   that court of 29 January 1998 in the case of BASF AG v.
                                                                              President of the German Patent Office
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                (Case C-44/98)
The action, brought under an arbitration clause, seeks the
                                                                                (98/C 137/16)
repayment of an advance paid under contract BREU-
0114-I(A) for the design of structures manufactured from
composite materials using CAD-CAM techniques, and the
completion of a completely automated production                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
prototype, using the filament-winding' method. The                European      Communities      by    an    order    of    the
Commission decided to terminate the contract, governed             Bundespatentgericht (Federal Patents Court) of 29 January
by Italian law, on the ground of breach of contract by the         1998, which was received at the Court Registry on
defendant.                                                         20 February 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                   BASF AG v. President of the German Patent Office on the
                                                                   following question:
                                                                   is it compatible with the principles of the free movement
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-             of goods (Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty) for a
gerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 21 January          patent granted by the European Patent Office with effect
1998 in the cases of Johann Seemeier and Jörg Schreiber            in a Member State which is drafted in a language other
against the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat des Landes               than the official language of that Member State to be
Salzburg and Jörg Schreiber against the Unabhängiger               deemed void ab initio if the patent-holder does not file
Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, Additional Party: Bundes-            with the patent office of the Member State in question a
           minister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr                   translation of the patent specification in the official
                        (Case C-42/98)                             language of that Member State within three months of the
                                                                   publication in the European Patent Bulletin of the
                         (98/C 137/15)                             mention of the grant of the patent?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungs-


               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/66

         Removal from the register of Case T-252/99 (1)

   (2004/C 94/165)

      (Language of the Case: Dutch)

   By order of 22 January 2004 the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-252/99: Total Nederland N.V. and Fina Nederland B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 20 of 22.01.2000.


title: Case C-214/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 23 April 2013 — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Alexandria v George Ciocoiu

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/8

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel București (Romania) lodged on 23 April 2013 — Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Alexandria v George Ciocoiu
   (Case C-214/13)
   2013/C 189/16
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel București

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Alexandria

      Defendant: George Ciocoiu

      Question referred

   Does Article 110 TFEU preclude the imposition by a Member State of a tax on pollutant emissions upon the first registration in that Member State of second-hand vehicles from another Member State of the European Union, when the levying and payment of that same tax, provided for under a legislative act in respect of second-hand vehicles on the national market of similar age, technical condition and mileage and payable on first transfer of ownership, have subsequently been suspended by a legislative act having the force of law?


title: Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 14 July 1998

text:
26.9.98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/1
                                                               I
                                                        (Information)
                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
     Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on             Ð Third Chamber
                       14 July 1998
                      (98/C 299/01)                                   Mr Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
                                                                      Mr Moitinho de Almeida and Mr Gulmann, Judges
The Court of Justice of the European Communities
adopted the following decisions at its meeting on 14 July
                                                                  Ð Fourth Chamber
1998:
Appointment of the Presidents of the Chambers                         Mr Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
                                                                      Mr Murray, Mr Ragnemalm and Mr Ioannou, Judges
In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure
the Court has appointed for a period of one year starting         Ð Fifth Chamber
on 7 October 1998:
Ð Judge P. Jann as President of the First Chamber,                    Mr Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
                                                                      Mr Jann, Mr Moitinho de Almeida, Mr Gulmann,
                                                                      Mr Edward, Mr Sevón and Mr Wathelet, Judges
Ð Judge G. Hirsch as President of the Second Chamber,
Ð Judge J.-P. Puissochet as President of the Third and            Ð Sixth Chamber
    Fifth Chambers,
                                                                      Mr Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
Ð Judge P. Kapteyn as President of the Fourth and Sixth               Mr Hirsch, Mr Mancini, Mr Murray, Mr Ragnemalm,
    Chambers.                                                         Mr Schintgen and Mr Ioannou, Judges
Composition of the Chambers
                                                                  2.    For each case assigned to them, the First and Fourth
                                                                  Chambers (to each of which four judges are attached)
1.   The composition of the Chambers for the same                 shall be composed of the President of the Chamber, the
period has been determined as follows:                            Judge-Rapporteur and a third judge designated in
                                                                  accordance with a list of the judges in order of seniority.
Ð First Chamber                                                   At each general meeting the starting point on that list is to
                                                                  be moved down one name.
    Mr Jann, President of the Chamber,
    Mr Edward, Mr Sevón and Mr Wathelet, Judges
                                                                  3.    For each case assigned to a large Chamber, the Fifth
                                                                  and Sixth Chambers, to each of which seven judges are
Ð Second Chamber                                                  attached, the five judges who are to sit shall be
                                                                  determined on the basis of a list drawn up for the judicial
    Mr Hirsch, President of the Chamber,                          year comprising all the judges of the Chamber, except the
    Mr Mancini and Mr Schintgen, Judges                           President, in the following order:
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/2              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26.9.98
(a) the judges of the small Chamber to which four judges            Sixth Chamber
    are attached, in order of seniority;
                                                                    (President: Mr Kapteyn)
(b) the judges of the other small Chamber, in the same              Judge Murray, Judge Ragnemalm, Judge Ioannou, Judge
    order.                                                          Mancini, Judge Hirsch and Judge Schintgen
                                                                    Appointment of the First Advocate General
For each case, the large Chamber shall be composed of:
                                                                    In accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure
Ð the President,                                                    the Court of Justice appointed Advocate General P. LeÂger
                                                                    as First Advocate General for a period of one year starting
                                                                    on 7 October 1998.
Ð the Judge-Rapporteur,
Ð three judges appointed in order from the list; the
    starting point on that list shall be moved down one
    name at each general meeting.                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
Any judges prevented from sitting shall be replaced in                                      of 9 July 1998
order from the list. However, should the President of the
large Chamber be prevented from sitting, he must be                 in    Case   C-323/97: Commission of the European
replaced if possible by the President of the small Chamber.                    Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                    (Right to vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal
                                                                                elections)
If the Court, or a Chamber, deems it appropriate to hear
                                                                                (98/C 299/02)
and determine two or more cases together (whether or not
they are formally joined), the composition of the bench
shall be that determined for the first of the cases discussed                       (Language of the case: French)
at a general meeting.
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
4. For the period ending on 6 October 1999 the lists                          published in the European Court Reports)
referred to above are as follows:
                                                                    In Case C-323/97: Commission of the European
First Chamber                                                       Communities (Agent: Pieter van Nuffel) v. Kingdom of
                                                                    Belgium (Agent: Jan Devadder) Ð application for a
                                                                    declaration that, by failing to bring into force within the
(President: Mr Jann)                                                prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/
Judge Edward, Judge Sevón and Judge Wathelet                        80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down detailed
                                                                    arrangements for the exercise of the right to vote and to
                                                                    stand as a candidate in municipal elections by citizens of
                                                                    the European Union residing in a Member State of which
Fourth Chamber
                                                                    they are not nationals (2), the Kingdom of Belgium has
                                                                    failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive Ð the
(President: Mr Kapteyn)                                             Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
                                                                    President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, G. F. Mancini,
                                                                    P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), and G. Hirsch, Judges; G.
Judge Murray, Judge Ragnemalm and Judge Ioannou
                                                                    Cosmas, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
                                                                    a judgment on 9 July 1998 in which it:
Fifth Chamber
                                                                    1. declares that, by failing to bring into force within the
                                                                         prescribed period the laws, regulations and
(President: Mr Puissochet)
                                                                         administrative provisions necessary to comply with l
                                                                         Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994 laying down
Judge Edward, Judge Jann, Judge Sevón, Judge Wathelet,                   detailed arrangements for the exercise of the right to
Judge Moitinho de Almeida and Judge Gulmann                              vote and to stand as a candidate in municipal elections


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) 14 March 2002 in Case C-161/00: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 91/676/EEC — Pollution — Protection of waters — Nitrates)

text:
C 118/10                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          18.5.2002
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                14 March 2002
                           21 March 2002                                   in Case C-161/00: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Federal Republic of Germany(1)
in Case C-36/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the                      (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                   European Communities (1)                                Directive 91/676/EEC — Pollution — Protection of waters
                                                                                — Nitrates)
(State aid — Regulation (EC) No 1013/97 — Aid to                                                     (2002/C 118/14)
publicly-owned shipyards — Declaration of compatibility of
aid to the publicly-owned shipyards in Spain — Failure to
              comply with conditions — Recovery)                                              (Language of the case: German)
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (2002/C 118/13)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         In Case C-161/00, Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: G. zur Hausen) v Federal Republic of Germany
                                                                           (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and B. Muttelsee-Schön), supported by
                                                                           Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde), and by
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: V. Koningsberger and
                   in the European Court Reports)                          H. van den Oosterkamp): Application for a declaration that,
                                                                           by failing to adopt all the measures necessary in order to
                                                                           comply with the obligations laid down in Article 5(4)(a) and
                                                                           point 2 of Annex III to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of
                                                                           12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters
                                                                           against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources
In Case C-36/00, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-                 (OJ 1991 L 375, p. 1), the Federal Republic of Germany has
de) v Commission of the European Communities (Agents:                      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court
J. Guerra Fernández and K.-D. Borchardt): Application for                 (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur), Presi-
annulment of Commission Decision 2000/131/EC of 26 Octo-                   dent of the Chamber, N. Colneric, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen
ber 1999 on the State aid implemented by Spain in favour of                and V. Skouris, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;
the publicly-owned shipyards (OJ 2000 L 37, p. 22), the                    R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 March 2002,
Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken (Rapporteur),                in which it:
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, V. Skou-
ris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of Division, for the                          administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 March 2002, in which                       obligations laid down in Article 5(4)(a) and point 2 of
it:                                                                              Annex III to Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December
                                                                                1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
                                                                                caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under
1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                                that Directive;
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                        2.    Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs;
                                                                           3.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands to bear their own costs.
(1) OJ C 147 of 27.5.2000.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.


title: ORDER OF THE COURT of 4 December 1997 in Case C-60/97 P: X v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Promotion - Appeal)

text:
C 209/12              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4.7.98
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8-10
                     of 4 December 1997                              Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the
                                                                     European Communities (Agents: JoseÂ Luis Iglesias
in Case C-60/97 P: X v. Commission of the European                   Buhigues and Barry Doherty, assisted by Alberto Dal
                        Communities (1)                              Ferro, Avvocato) Ð application under Article 153 of the
                                                                     Euratom Treaty for compensation for damage caused by
             (Officials Ð Promotion Ð Appeal)
                                                                     failure to pay for services provided under a contract
                         (98/C 209/23)                               concluded with the Commission Ð the Court, composed
                                                                     of G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann,
                                                                     H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Presidents of
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
                                                                     P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
                                                                     (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; Advocate General, A. M. La
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Pergola; Registrar, R. Grass, made an order on 9 December
                                                                     1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
In Case C-60/97 P: X, an official of the Commission of
the European Communities, residing at Luxembourg,                    1. The case is referred to the Court of First Instance.
represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the Luxembourg Bar,
180 Route de Longwy, Luxembourg Ð appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European              2. The Court of First Instance shall make an order as to
Communities, Third Chamber, of 12 December 1996 in                        costs relating to the proceedings before both courts.
Case T-130/95 X v. Commission [1996] ECR-SC II-1609,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to          (1) OJ C 271 of 6.9.1997.
the proceedings being Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Christine Berardis-Kayser, assisted
by Alberto Dal Ferro) Ð the Court (First Chamber),
composed of M. Wathelet (President of Chamber), P. Jann
(Rapporteur), and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an
order on 4 December 1997, the operative part of which is                                ORDER OF THE COURT
as follows:                                                                                (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 25 March 1998
1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                     in Case C-174/97 P: FeÂdeÂration FrancËaise des SocieÂteÂs
                                                                     d'Assurances (FFSA) and Others v. Commission of the
2. The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.                        European Communities, supported by the French Republic
                                                                                and La Poste (1)
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                            (State aid Ð Appeal Ð Fiscal advantages in favour of La
                                                                                Poste Ð Insurance products)
                                                                                (98/C 209/25)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                     of 9 December 1997                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
in Case C-257/97: E-Quattro Snc v. Commission of the                           published in the European Court Reports)
                  European Communities (1)
(Lack of jurisdiction of the Court Ð Referral to the Court           In Case C-174/97 P: FeÂdeÂration FrancËaise des SocieÂteÂs
                       of First Instance)                            d'Assurances (FFSA), an association governed by French
                                                                     law, established in Paris, Union des SocieÂteÂs EÂtrangeÁres
                         (98/C 209/24)                               d'Assurances (USEA), an association governed by French
                                                                     law, established in Paris, Groupe des Assurances Mutuelles
                (Language of the case: Italian)                      Agricoles (Groupama), an association governed by French
                                                                     law, established in Noisy-le-Grand (France), FeÂdeÂration
                                                                     Nationale des Syndicats d'Agents GeÂneÂraux d'Assurances
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       (FNSAGA), an association governed by French law,
         published in the European Court Reports)                    established in Paris, FeÂdeÂration FrancËaise des Courtiers
                                                                     d'Assurances et de ReÂassurances (FCA), an association
                                                                     governed by French law, established in Paris, Bureau
In Case C-257/97: E-Quattro Snc, established in Laveno-              International des Producteurs d'Assurances et de
Mombello (Varese, Italy), represented by Giuseppe                    ReÂassurances (BIPAR), an association governed by French
Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service          law, established in Paris, represented by Xavier de Roux


title: Case T-435/10: Order of the General Court of 31 August 2011 — IEM v Commission (Action for annulment — Fourth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration — Application for the reimbursement of sums paid in advance under a research financing contract — Arbitration clause — Letter notifying the issuing of a debit note — Reminder letter — Acts inseparable from the contract — Inadmissibility)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/21

         Order of the General Court of 31 August 2011 — IEM v Commission
   (Case T-435/10) (1)

   (Action for annulment - Fourth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration - Application for the reimbursement of sums paid in advance under a research financing contract - Arbitration clause - Letter notifying the issuing of a debit note - Reminder letter - Acts inseparable from the contract - Inadmissibility)
   2011/C 319/45
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Sofokleous, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and A. Sauka, Agents)

      Re:

   Action, first, for the annulment of the Commission's letter of 7 May 2010 notifying the applicant of the issuing of a debit note for the reimbursement of the sum of EUR 105 416,47, corresponding to the sums paid in advance to the applicant by Parthénon AE Oikodomikon — Technikon — Touristikon — Viomichanikon — Emporikon kai Exagogikon Ergasion pursuant to Contract FAIR-CT98-9544 concluded in the context of the fourth framework programme for research, technological development and demonstration and, second, for the annulment of the Commission's letter of 14 July 2010 reminding the applicant of the principal outstanding sum, claimed in debit note No 3241004968.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               IEM — Erga — Erevnes — Meletes perivallontos kai chorotaxias AE is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 346, 18.12.2010.


title: Case C-73/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln, Germany) — Planzer Luxembourg Sàrl v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 17(3) and (4) — Refund of VAT — Eighth VAT Directive — Refund of VAT to taxable persons not established inside the country — Articles 3(b) and 9, second paragraph — Annex B — Certificate of status as a taxable person — Legal scope — Thirteenth VAT Directive — Refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in Community territory — Article 1(1) — Concept of business )

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 28 June 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Köln, Germany) — Planzer Luxembourg Sàrl v Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   (Case C-73/06) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Article 17(3) and (4) - Refund of VAT - Eighth VAT Directive - Refund of VAT to taxable persons not established inside the country - Articles 3(b) and 9, second paragraph - Annex B - Certificate of status as a taxable person - Legal scope - Thirteenth VAT Directive - Refund of VAT to taxable persons not established in Community territory - Article 1(1) - Concept of ‘business’)
   (2007/C 199/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Köln, Germany
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Planzer Luxembourg Sàrl

      Defendant: Bundeszentralamt für Steuern
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Köln — Interpretation of Art.3(b) of and Annex B to the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) and of Article 1(1) of the Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory (OJ 1986 L 326, p. 40) — Refund of VAT to a taxable person established in the territory of another Member State which is a subsidiary of a company established in a non-member State — Meaning of ‘his business’ and ‘a fixed establishment from which business transactions are effected’
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(b) and the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country must be interpreted as meaning that the certificate in accordance with the specimen in Annex B to that directive does in principle allow the presumption that the person concerned is not only subject to VAT in the Member State whose tax authorities issued it, but also that he is established in that Member State.
               Those provisions do not, however, imply that the tax authorities of the Member State in which refund of input VAT is applied for are prohibited, where they have doubts as to the economic reality of the establishment whose address is given in that certificate, from verifying that reality by having recourse to the administrative measures made available for that purpose by Community legislation on VAT.

               2.

               Article 1(1) of the Thirteenth Council Directive 86/560/EEC of 17 November 1986 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in Community territory must be interpreted as meaning that the place of a company's business is the place where the essential decisions concerning its general management are taken and where the functions of its central administration are exercised.

      (1)  OJ C 201, 7.8.2004.


title: Case C-342/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats — Wild fauna and flora — Wolf hunting)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
   (Case C-342/05) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Wild fauna and flora - Wolf hunting)
   (2007/C 183/08)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek and I. Koskinen, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: E. Bygglin, Agent)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Infringement of Articles 12(1) and 16(1) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7) — Hunting of wolves
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by authorising wolf hunting on a preventive basis, without it being established that the hunting is such as to prevent serious damage within the meaning of Article 16(1)(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12(1) and 16(1)(b) of that directive;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

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

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case T-457/12: Order of the General Court of 24 October 2013 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG) (Community trade mark — Community word mark STORMBERG — Appeal against the request for conversion of a Community trade mark into national trade mark applications — Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

text:
               14.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 367/28

         Order of the General Court of 24 October 2013 — Stromberg Menswear v OHIM — Leketoy Stormberg Inter (STORMBERG)
   (Case T-457/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Community word mark STORMBERG - Appeal against the request for conversion of a Community trade mark into national trade mark applications - Inadmissibility of the appeal before the Board of Appeal - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)
   2013/C 367/51
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Stromberg Menswear Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Tsoutsanis, lawyer, and C. Tulley, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Leketoy Stormberg Inter AS (Kristiansand S, Norway) (represented initially by T. Mølsgaard, and subsequently by J. Løje, lawyers)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 August 2012 (Case R 428/2012-4), relating to the request for conversion of a Community trade mark into national trade mark applications submitted by Leketoy Stormberg Inter AS.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               Stromberg Menswear Ltd shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013.


title: Case T-188/15: Action brought on 17 April 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/42

         Action brought on 17 April 2015 — Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission
   (Case T-188/15)
   (2015/C 198/57)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicants: Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici SpA (Arzano, Italy); Atap — Azienda Trasporti Automobilistici Pubblici delle Province di Biella e Vercelli SpA (Biella, Italy); Actv SpA (Venice, Italy); Ferrovie Appulo Lucane Srl (Bari, Italy); Asstra Associazione Trasporti (Rome, Italy); and Associazione Nazionale Autotrasporto Viaggiatori (ANAV) (Rome) (represented by: M. Malena, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should annul those chapters and parts of the contested decision which are subject to appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied on in Case T-187/15 Compagnia Trasporti Pubblici and Others v Commission.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Ireland, by order of that court dated 29 May 1997, in the case of Connemara Machine Turf Company against Coillte Teoranta (Case C-306/97)

text:
18 . 10 . 97                 I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 318/ 11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court                          2 . Is it compatible with the applicable Community law,
of Ireland, by order of that court dated 29 May 1997, in                           and in particular with Articles 52 and 58 of the EC
the case of Connemara Machine Turf Company against                                 Treaty, read together, for the tax levied in a non
                                Coillte Teoranta                                   member State on the profits of a subsidiary in that
                                ( Case C-306/97)                                   State of a branch establishment in Germany of a
                                                                                company having its seat in another Member State not
                                  ( 97/C 318/19 )                                  to be credited against the German corporation tax on
                                                                                that German branch establishment under the same
                                                                                conditions as for a company having its seat in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                             Germany ?
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Ireland dated 29 May 1997, which was received at the
Court Registry on 2 September 1997, for a preliminary                         3 . Is it compatible with the applicable Community law,
ruling in the case of Connemara Machine Turf Company '                             and in particular with Articles 52 and 58 of the EC
against Coillte Teoranta on the following questions:                               Treaty, read together, for a branch establishment in
                                                                                Germany of a company having its seat in another
                                                                                Member State not to be accorded Schachtelprivileg in
( i ) Is the Defendant a 'contracting authority' within
                                                                                respect of capital tax under the same conditions as for
       the definition of the term 'contracting authorities'                        a company having its seat in Germany ?
       contained in Article 1 ( b) of Council Directive 77/62/
       EEC H ?
( ii ) Is the Defendant a 'contracting authority' within
       the definition of the term 'contracting authorities'
       contained in Article 1 ( b) of Council Directive 93/36/
       EEC ( 2)?                                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by Pretura
                                                                              Circondariale di Bari, by order of that court of 19 August
(') Council        Directive      77/62/EEC   of   21  December    1976         1997, in the case of Giuseppe Manfredi v. Regione Puglia
      coordinating procedures for the award of public supply                                            ( Case C-308/97)
      contracts ( OJ L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 ).
( 2 ) Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating                                              97/C 318/21 )
      procedures for the award of public supply contracts ( OJ L 199,
      9 . 8 . 1993 , p. 1 ).
                                                                              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                              European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                              Circondariale di Bari ( Magistrate's Court, District of Bari )
                                                                              of 19 August 1997, which was received at the Court
                                                                              Registry on 3 September 1997, for a preliminary ruling
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht                     in the case of Giuseppe Manfredi v. Regione Puglia
Koln by order of that court of 30 June 1997 in the case of                    concerning the extension of the prohibition of the planting
Compagnie de Saint-Gobain, German branch v. Finanzamt                         of new vines laid down in Article 6 ( 1 ) of Council
                               Aachen-Innenstadt                              Regulation ( EEC) No 822/87 ( ] ) to vines intended for the
                                                                              production of table grapes.
                                  Case C-307/97 )
                                  ( 97/C 318/20 )                             0 ) OJ L 84, 27. 3 . 1987, p . 1 .
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Finanzgericht
Koln (Finance Court, Cologne ) of 30 June 1997, which
was received at the Court Registry on 2 September 1997,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Compagnie de                          Appeal brought on 4 September 1997 by the Commission
Saint-Gobain, German branch v. Finanzamt Aachen                              of the European Communities against the judgment
Innenstadt on the following questions:                                        delivered on 10 July 1997 by the Second Chamber
                                                                              ( extended composition) of the Court of First Instance of
1 . Is it compatible with the applicable Community law,                       the European Communities in Case T-227/95 between
       and in particular with Articles 52 and 58 of the EC                    AssiDoman Kraft Products AB and Others and the
       Treaty, read together, for a branch establishment in                            Commission of the European Communities
       Germany of a company having its seat in another                                                ( Case C-3 10/97 P)
       Member State not to be accorded Schachtelprivileg (a
       form of tax relief in respect of profits distributed                                               ( 97/C 318/22 )
       between parent company and subsidiary) in respect of
       dividends under a double taxation agreement with a
       non-member State under the same conditions as for a                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 July 1997
       company having its seat in Germany ?                                   by the Second Chamber (extended composition) of the


title: Case T-450/12: Action brought on 11 October 2012 — Anagnostakis v Commission

text:
               22.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 399/24

         Action brought on 11 October 2012 — Anagnostakis v Commission
   (Case T-450/12)
   2012/C 399/47
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Applicant: Alexios Anagnostakis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Anagnostakis, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 6 September 2012 by which it rejected registration of the proposed citizens’ initiative entitled ‘ONE MILLION SIGNATURES FOR A EUROPE OF SOLIDARITY’;

               —

               order the Commission to register the abovementioned initiative in accordance with the law, and order any other measure required by law;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               The first plea in law is derived from Article 122 TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant maintains that the European Commission is unjustified in contending that it lacks competence to submit a proposal for the adoption of a legal measure relating to the proposed initiative concerning establishment of the ‘principle of the state of necessity’. Under Article 122(1) TFEU (ex Article 100 EC), the Commission proposes (and the Council decides upon), in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, the measures appropriate to the economic situation. Such measures include the laying down of the principle of the state of necessity in the treaties of the European Union and the adoption of measures and policies to that effect.

               2.

               The second plea in law is derived from Article 136(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant maintains that the Commission is unjustified in considering in its decision that Article 136(1) TFEU might be used as a legal basis only where the measures relate to the strengthening of budgetary discipline and are limited to that. Under Article 136(1)(b) TFEU, the measures proposed can also relate to the setting out of economic policy guidelines for the Member States in question. The principle of the state of necessity is such a guideline in the carrying out of that policy.

               3.

               The third plea in law is derived from Article 136(1) TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the Commission is unjustified in considering in its decision that Article 136(1) does not empower the European Union to take the place of the Member States in the exercise of their budgetary sovereignty and of the functions which are related to State income and expenditure. The Council can adopt, under the procedure provided for in Articles 121 TFEU to 126 TFEU, measures for the Member States whose currency is the euro. That is clear from Article 136(1). That article does not contain a restriction, in the application of measures, deriving from the supposed budgetary sovereignty of the Member States.

               4.

               The fourth plea in law is derived from Article 222 TFEU.

                           —

                           The applicant submits that the Commission’s decision is in direct conflict with the solidarity clause set out in Article 222 TFEU.


title: Case T-647/15: Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros v Parliament

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/61

         Action brought on 13 November 2015 — Boros v Parliament
   (Case T-647/15)
   (2016/C 048/69)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Crina Boros (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Pirc Musar, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul decision A(2015)8554 C of the European Parliament of 16 September 2015 rejecting the applicant’s confirmatory application for access to certain documents relating to information on Members’ of the European Parliament travel expenses, subsistence allowances, general expenditure allowances and staffing arrangements expenses;

               —

               order the Parliament to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Articles 134 and 140 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs of any intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 (1) in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001 (2), since the personal data requested are not protected under Community legislation

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 8(b) of Regulation 45/2001, as the access to the requested information was refused, although the conditions for disclosure were met

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a violation of the general obligation, under Articles 2 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 in conjunction with Article 6(3) of Regulation 1049/2001, to conduct an examination of each individual document

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging a violation of Article 4(6) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the refusal to grant partial access to the requested documents was not justified

               5.

               Fifth plea in law, alleging a violation of the duty to state reasons as required by Articles 7(1) and 8(1) of Regulation 1049/2001, as the Parliament failed to address all the applicant’s arguments

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

      (2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin by order of that court of 17 September 1998 in the case of Landerzeugergemeinschaft e.G. Gross Godems against Amt für Landwirtschaft Parchim (Case C-414/98)

text:
6.2.1999               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 33/3
     Article 5(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83,                 Regulation (EEC) No 838/93, extend back only to the
     be validly effected only by means of an entry in box 18              point in time when the areas under cultivation ceased
     of the form set out in Annex II to Commission                        to be farmed extensively or is the discrepancy to be
     Decision 83/673 (3) of 22 December 1983 when the                     calculated and deducted for the whole period of the
     claim for final payment is forwarded, pursuant to the                undertaking?
     first indent of Article 1(2) and Article 1(3) and (4) as
     well as Article 6(1) and (2) of the abovementioned
     decision, or do those provisions apply only to                  3. What are the criteria for determining whether there
     inter-departmental procedural formalities, of no                     is a serious infringement within the meaning of
     external relevance since they are not essential, which               Article 16(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88, as
     do not make it impossible for the department                         amended by Regulation (EEC) No 838/93?
     concerned subsequently to issue a certificate which
     differs from the first certificate, either as a separate
     document or on a fresh form, provided that, in either           (1) OJ L 361, 29.12.1988, p. 13.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 88, 8.4.1993, p. 16.
     case, it takes account of the legal nature of the
     measures in question and complies with the limits and
     conditions laid down by national law for making the
     relevant alteration?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983 on
    the implementation of Decision 83/516/EEC on the tasks of
    the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 22.10.1983, p. 1).           Action brought on 3 December 1998 by the Commission
(2) Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October 1983 on the             of the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    tasks of the European Social Fund (OJ L 289, 22.10.1983,
    p. 38).                                                                                (Case C-439/98)
(3) Commission Decision 83/673/EEC of 22 December 1983 on
    the management of the European Social Fund (OJ L 377,
                                                                                (1999/C 33/04)
    31.12.1983, p. 1).
                                                                     An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                     3 December 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal
                                                                     Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
                                                                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
   Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin by order of that court of
                                                                     its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
               17 September 1998 in the case of
   Landerzeugergemeinschaft e.G. Gross Godems against
                Amt für Landwirtschaft Parchim
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (Case C-414/98)
                         (1999/C 33/03)
                                                                     1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
                                                                          within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
the European Communities by order of the                                  Commission Directive 95/30/EC (1) of 30 June 1995
Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Administrative Court,                        adapting to technical progress Council Directive
Schwerin) of 17 September 1998, received at the Court                     90/679/EEC (2) of 20 November 1990 on the
Registry on 20 November 1998, for a preliminary ruling                    protection of workers from risks related to exposure
in the case of Landerzeugergemeinschaft (agricultural                     to biological agents at work (seventh individual
producer group) e.G. Gross Godems against Amt für                         Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of
Landwirtschaft Parchim (Office for Agriculture, Parchim)                  Directive 89/391/EEC) (3), or by failing                 to
on the following questions:                                               communicate such provisions, the Italian Republic has
                                                                          failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
1. Does the penalty laid down by the first sentence of
     Article 16(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88 (1), as            2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     amended by Regulation (EEC) No 838/93 (2), still
     apply where the discrepancy between the number of
     units for which the aid is requested and the number of
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     units measured is not more than 10 % of the area but
     more than two hectares?
                                                                     Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
2. Does the reduction with regard to aid paid in advance,            directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
     laid down by the second sentence of Article 16(1) of            upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
     Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88, as amended by                      Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid


title: Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Eugénio Branco Lda. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-142/97)

text:
No C 199/36           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        28 . 6 . 97
Action brought on 25 April 1997 by Kesko Oy against the                     effective competition. The Commission therefore
          Commission of the European Communities                            contravened the principles of non-discrimination,
                       ( Case T-134/97)                                     proportionality and good administration. Moreover,
                                                                            by omitting to provide any reasons for that change in
                         ( 97/C 199/ 84 )                                   practice, the Commission infringed Article 190 of the
                                                                            EC Treaty.
                (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     3 . The Article 8 (4 ) Decision requires the pre-merger
An action against the Commission of the European                            situation to be restored and in so doing goes beyond
Communities was brought before the Court of First                           what is required to achieve the goal of restoring
Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 1997                       conditions of effective competition. In excluding a
by Kesko Oy, represented by Gerwin Van Gerven, of the                       priori solutions which fall short of establishing the
Brussels Bar, and Sarah Beeston, of the Law Society of                      status quo ante, the Commission exceeds its powers
England and Wales, with an address for service in                           under Article 8 ( 4 ) of the Merger Regulation and
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, rue                          contravenes the principles of proportionality and good
                                                                            administration .
Goethe 11 , Luxembourg.
                                                                     (') Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                on the control of concentrations between undertakings ( OJ No
                                                                           L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989, p. 1 ).
                                                                     ( 2 ) OJ No C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997, p . 17.
— annul the Commission decision of 19 February 1997
     in Case IV/M.784 Kesko/Tuko,
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     applicant.
                                                                     Action brought on 29 April 1997 by Eugenio Branco Lda.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T- 142/97)
On 20 November 1996, the Commission declared ,
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/85 )
pursuant to Article 8 ( 3 ) of the Merger Regulation H , an
implemented concentration between the applicant and
Tuko Oy, an undertaking incorporated under Finnish law,                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
to be incompatible with the common market and the
functioning of the EEA. Subsequently, on 19 February
1997, the Commission adopted a further decision setting              An action against the Commission of the European
out measures in order to restore effective competition               Communities was brought before the Court of First
pursuant to Article 8 (4 ) of the Merger Regulation.                 Instance of the European Communities on 29 April 1997
                                                                     by Eugenio Branco Lda, a limited liability trading
                                                                     company, whose registered office is at 9, Rua Rodrigo da
By application lodged at the Registry by the Court on                Fonseca, Lisbon, represented by Bolota Belchior, of the
31 January 1997 and allocated the case number T-22/                  Vila Nova de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in
97 (2 ), the applicant brought an action under Article 173           Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder of
of the EC Treaty for annulment of the Article 8 ( 3 )                Faltz & Associes, 6, Rue Heine, Luxembourg.
Decision. By its present application, the applicant seeks
the annulment of the Article 8 (4 ) Decision .
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant makes the following submissions:
                                                                     — annul the decision of the Commission, notified to the
 1 . The Article 8 (4 ) Decision should be annulled because                 applicant by DAFSE by letter of 24 February 1997,
     it is conditional upon a valid Article 8 ( 3 ) Decision. In            approving the claim for final payment in the context
     so far as the Article 8 ( 3 ) Decision is annulled, as                 of a European Social Fund contribution, which
      requested by the applicant in its application of                      considered ineligible expenditure submitted by the
      31 January 1997, the Article 8 ( 4 ) Decision must                     applicant and claiming repayment of Esc 17 565 320 ,
      automatically be annulled.                                            Esc 423 507 of which it received by way of an
                                                                             advance granted by the European Social Fund, and of
                                                                             Esc 17 141 813 , which it received by way of an
 2. The procedure followed in the adoption of the                            advance on the contribution out of public funds made
     Article 8 (4 ) Decision was at variance with the                        by the Portuguese State, reducing the ESF contribution
      Commission's previous practice with regard to                          to Esc 30 672 242 ,
      implemented concentrations, in that it did not allow
      the applicant to propose, within a reasonable period
      of time, appropriate measures to restore conditions of          — order the Commission to pay the costs .
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 6 . 97            EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 199/37
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        rights acquired by the applicant. Finally, the principle
                                                                           of proportionality was breached.
The applicant submitted to DAFSE ( Departamento para                (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996, p . 18 .
Asuntos do Fundo Social Europeu — the Portuguese                    (2 ) OJ No L 289, 22 . 10 . 1983 , p. 1 .
European Social Fund agency) on 31 July 1987 its                    ( 3 ) OJ No L 289, 22 . 10 . 1983 , p. 38 .
application for financing to be granted by the European
Social Fund ( ESF ) in respect of a vocational training
programme to run from 2 January 1988 to 31 December
1988 inclusive . The training programme was approved as
a whole by a Commission decision notified to the
applicant by DAFSE on 25 May 1988 . Thus, on 12 August
1988 the applicant received Esc 31 095 749, which was an            Action brought on 29 April 1997 by G. M. van den Berg
advance of 50% of ESF's share, and Esc 25 441 977,                                   against the European Community
which was the Portuguese State's share. The applicant put                                     ( Case T-143/97)
in motion and pursued to its conclusion the
abovementioned training project and finished it within the                                      ( 97/C 199/86 )
agreed period. Subsequently, the applicant submitted the
claim for final payment. On 17 December 1993 the
applicant was notified by letter by DAFSE of the                                       (Language of the case: Dutch)
Commission's decision approving the final payment claim
but which found certain expenditure submitted by the                An action against the European Community was brought
applicant to be ineligible, reducing the ESF's contribution.         before the Court of First Instance of the European
The applicant brought the appropriate action for                     Communities on 29 April 1997 by G. M. van den Berg,
annulment against that decision of the Commission,                  residing at Dalfsen (Netherlands ), represented by E. H.
registered under Case No T-85/94 in the Court of First              Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address
Instance . That action was upheld and the decision at issue          for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden,
annulled by judgment of 12 January 1995 ( ] ). Instead of            62 Avenue Guillaume .         .
implementing that judgment, the Commission took a
decision identical to that which was annulled except that,
on this occasion, it gave reasons for that decision and              The applicant claims that the Court should:
notified the applicant in order to allow it to submit
comments beforehand .
                                                                     — declare that the Community is liable to make good the
                                                                           damage which the applicant has suffered and may
The applicant maintains that the contested measure is                      suffer in the future as a result of the fact that, since
unlawful and should be annulled on the following                           the termination on 23 February 1985 of the non
grounds :                                                                   marketing undertaking given by the applicant pursuant
                                                                           to Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1078/77 of 17 May
                                                                            1977, he has been refused a representative reference
— Breach of the principle of legitimate                                     quantity on the sole ground that he no longer
     expectation and legal certainty :                                      operates, in whole or in part, the holding on which he
                                                                            produced milk prior to giving the said non-marketing
                                                                            undertaking,
     Although the Commission's decision is not bound by a
     definite time-limit, it should nevertheless observe a
     reasonable period for its implementation . If the               — order the Community to pay the applicant, in relation
     Commission had been so minded, it could have taken                     to the damage suffered by him, the sum of Fl 606 315 ,
     the measure which it now sought to implement in                        together with interest thereon at the rate of 8 % per
     early 1995 , after the sentence delivered by the Court                 annum from the date when the application was lodged
     on 12 January 1995 . By taking the contested decision                  until the date of payment in full,
     after a long period elapsed, the Commission breached
     the principle of legitimate expectation and legal               — order the Community to pay the costs .
     certainty,
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 — Unlawfulness :
                                                                      In 1986, following the expiry of his SLOM undertaking,
      The contested decision infringed Council Regulation             the applicant voluntarily purchased another dairy holding
      ( EEC ) No 2950/83 ( 2) and Council Decision 83/516/            with the intention of resuming milk production thereon.
      EEC ( 3 ) since the applicant complied rigorously with          According to the final decision of the Netherlands
      the laws, regulations, directives, criteria, obligations        authorities, however, the effect of Article 3a ( 1 ) of
      and conditions required when the initial ESF decision           Regulation ( EEC ) No 1546/88 (') is that he is not entitled
      approving the training project was taken by the                 to a milk quota. He nevertheless considers, on the basis of
      Commission . The contested decision also breached the           the case-law of the Court of Justice, that the Community


14.9.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 219/11
       —     in Artois-Picardie: the coastal waters and, for main-        Removal from the register of Cases C-73/00, C-415/00,
             land waters, the hydrographic system between the               C-420/00, C-123/01, C-237/01, C-238/01 and C-15/02 ( 1)
             canalised Aa and the Escaut on the one hand and
             the Belgian border on the other hand, the Scarpe
             downstream from Arras, the Lens Canal downstream                                      (2002/C 219/20)
             from Lens and the whole of the Somme;
       —     in Rhône-Méditerranée-Corse: the River Vistre and
             Thau lake.                                                   By order of 28 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
—      Lack of more stringent treatment for urban waste water             register of Cases C-73/00, C-415/00, C-420/00, C-123/01,
       discharges with a population equivalent (p.e.) of more             C-237/01, C-238/01 et C-15/02 (Referral for a preliminary
       than 10 000: The French authorities had admitted that              ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg): Hans
       for 130 agglomerations the equipment for treating urban            Oppitz and Others v Bürgermeister der Landeshauptstadt
       waste water was not, by the deadline of 31 December                Salzburg and Grundverkehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg.
       1998, in compliance with the requirements of the
       Directive. While those authorities, in their response to
       the reasoned opinion, specify that the discharges of some          (1 ) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000, OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001, OJ C 28 of
                                                                               27.1.2001, OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001, OJ C 227 of 11.8.2001, OJ
       of those 130 agglomerations are in fact now subject to
                                                                               C 227 of 11.8.2001, OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
       such treatment, only the agglomerations of Vichy, Aix en
       Provence and Mâcon can actually be removed from the
       list of the abovementioned 130 agglomerations. For
       others, the reply states that the necessary equipment will
       only come into service at a future date. That is the case
       for Boulogne-sur-mer (2005), Clermont-Ferrand (2004),
       Saint-Etienne (2005), Mulhouse (2003), Nancy (autumn
       2002), Dijon (2005), Montpellier (2004), Tarare (2003),
       Villefranche sur Saône (2004), Vitrolles (2005) and                        Removal from the register of Case C-128/01 ( 1)
       Auxerre (2004).
       The inadequate identification of sensitive areas has inevi-                                 (2002/C 219/21)
       tably resulted in the obligation in Article 5(2) of the
       Directive not being taken into account in the areas
       concerned.
                                                                          By order of 27 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
( 1) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21.5.1991 concerning urban           register of Case C-128/01: Commission of the European
     waste water treatment (OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991), p. 40.                Communities v Italian Republic.
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 161 of 2.6.2001.
Removal from the register of Cases C-72/00, C-128/00
                          and C-319/00 ( 1)
                          (2002/C 219/19)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-143/01 ( 1)
                                                                                (2002/C 219/22)
By order of 31 May 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Cases C-72/00, C-128/00 and C-319/00 (Referral
for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat
                                                                          By order of 7 June 2002 the President of the Court of Justice
Salzburg): Neubau Gesellschaft mbH and Others v Grundver-
                                                                          of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
kehrsbeauftragter des Landes Salzburg and Grundverkehrslan-
                                                                          register of Case C-143/01: Commission of the European
deskommission des Landes Salzburg.
                                                                          Communities v Kingdom of Spain.
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000, OJ C 163 of 10.6.2000, OJ C 302 of
     21.10.2000.                                                          (1 ) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.


title: Case T-257/09: Action brought on 2 July 2009 — AECOPS v Commission

text:
               12.9.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 220/34

         Action brought on 2 July 2009 — AECOPS v Commission
   (Case T-257/09)
   2009/C 220/72
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: Associação de Empresas de Construção, Obras Públicas e Serviços (Aecops) (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: J.L. da Cruz Vilaça and L. Pinto Monteiro, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 22 June 2005 in respect of File 89 0979 P3, reducing the aid granted by Decision C(89) 0570 of 22 March 1989 to PTE 426 070 and requiring the reimbursement of the amount of PTE 1 591 128;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   Infringement of the right to a prior hearing: the applicant was not given the opportunity to comment before a definitive decision to reduce the financial assistance was adopted, which constitutes the breach of an essential procedural requirement the disregard of which renders such a decision void.
   Infringement of the principal of legal certainty through limitation and excessive delay in adopting a decision.
   Breach of the duty to state reasons: the contested decision fails to set out, even summarily, the reasons for reducing the assistance.


title: Case C-276/10: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2006/118/EC — Protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

text:
               26.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/12

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 December 2010 — European Commission v Czech Republic
   (Case C-276/10) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2006/118/EC - Protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
   2011/C 63/21
   Language of the case: Czech

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán and L. Jelinek, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: M. Smolek and J. Jirkalová, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, or to communicate within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (OJ 2006 L 372, p. 19)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 of that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.07.2010.


title: Case T-332/03: Action brought on 29 September 2003 by European Service Network against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
29.11.2003            EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/31
In support of her claims, she alleges, apart from the fact of                   The Joint Committee on Staff Reports did not express an
having been the victim of harassment in the work place, an                      opinion on all the criticisms levelled by the applicant and
error in the reasoning and irregularity in the promotion                        he was not consulted beforehand;
procedure, in that the contested decision does not enable her
to know if it was really the Appointing Authority which made              —     that there was in the circumstances of the case a manifest
the choice provided for by Article 45 of the Staff Regulations,                 error of appreciation inasmuch as, on the one hand, the
or whether it confined itself to confirming the conclusions of                  staff report at issue contains criticisms to which voice
the Consultative Commission on Promotions (CCP).                                was never given at the material time, which are strongly
                                                                                contested and which are not borne out by any evidence
                                                                                and as, on the other, the defendant puts forward a
                                                                                problem which arose after the period covered by the
                                                                                report.
                                                                          Lastly, the applicant alleges misuse by the Commission of its
Action brought on 21 September 2003 by Michael Cwik                       powers and mental harassment.
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-331/03)
                         (2003/C 289/64)
                                                                          Action brought on 29 September 2003 by European
                                                                          Service Network against the Commission of the European
                   (Language of the case: French)                                                   Communities
                                                                                (Case T-332/03)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (2003/C 289/65)
European Communities on 21 September 2003 by Michael
Cwik, residing in Tervuren (Belgium), represented by Nicolas
Lhoëst, 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
—     annul the Secretary General’s decision of 31 October                European Communities on 29 September 2003 by European
      2002 confirming unamended the applicant’s staff report              Service Network, established in Brussels, represented by René
      for the period 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;                         Steichen, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
—     order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 6 500;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                          —     annul Invitation to tender ENTR/02/055 — CORDIS —
                                                                                Lot 1;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
The applicant in this case challenges the appointing authority’s
refusal to amend his staff report for the period 1999/2001.               Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant submitted a tender pursuant to lot 1 of Invitation
In support of his claims he puts forward the following                    to tender ENTR/02/055 — CORDIS. The applicant was not
arguments:                                                                successful.
—     that there was a breach of the pre-litigation procedure
      because, inter alia, the staff report in question was drawn         The applicant contests the award of the contract to the
      up on the basis of two memos drafted by two of his                  successful tenderer. According to the applicant, the Com-
      former line managers. It is not clear whether the first of          mission did not comply with the principle of equal treatment
      those two memos refers to the period concerned, while               of tenderers or the rule of transparency in the tendering
      the second refers to matters taking place after that period.        procedure.
 ---pagebreak--- C 289/32               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        29.11.2003
The applicant claims, first, that the successful tenderer received         Pleas in law and main arguments
favourable financial treatment, to the detriment of the other
tenderers. The applicant also alleges that the successful tenderer
had privileged access to essential information. The applicant
alleges in particular that the other tenderers did not have                According to the applicant, its claim arises out of two TACIS
access to certain essential technical information on the current           contracts between the Commission and a contractor regarding
status of the database for the CORDIS project.                             two projects in Moldova and Russia. The contractor subcon-
                                                                           tracted with the applicant to provide some of the services.
                                                                           When the applicant discovered what it considered to be
                                                                           irregularities on the part of the contractor, it informed the
The applicant also submits that the criteria used in the award
of the tender do not conform to those laid down in the                     Commission Services. On the understanding that it would be
                                                                           paid for the services rendered, the applicant carried out the
contract documents and that the Commission applied in a
                                                                           services necessary for completion of the projects covered
discriminatory manner the criteria published in the contract
                                                                           by the contracts. Subsequently, the Commission ceased all
documents for the selection of the tender giving the best
quality/price ratio.                                                       payments to the contractor and issued recovery orders for
                                                                           amounts already paid to the contractor.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Commission’s failure to pay the
                                                                           sum of EUR 448 947,78 is wrongful and has caused the
                                                                           applicant additional loss. The applicant argues that the Com-
                                                                           mission has had the benefit of the services provided by the
                                                                           applicant but has not paid anyone for such services. The
Action brought on 30 September 2003 by Masdar (U.K.)                       applicant claims that the Commission is obliged to pay the
  Ltd against Commission of the European Communities                       applicant for the services provided on the basis of the principles
                                                                           of unjust enrichment, gestion d’affaires, legitimate expectation
                                                                           and general principles of fault liability. In addition, the
                         (Case T-333/03)                                   applicant claims interest and damages for loss consequential
                                                                           upon the Commission’s alleged illegal failure to pay the
                                                                           applicant for the services.
                        (2003/C 289/66)
                   (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 30 September 2003 by Masdar
(U.K.) Ltd, Eversley, Hampshire, (United Kingdom), represented             Action brought on 29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post
by Philip Bentley QC and Patrick Green, Barrister.                         EURO EXPRESS GmbH against the Office for Harmonis-
                                                                             ation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Case T-334/03)
—    order the Commission to pay to the applicant:
                                                                                (2003/C 289/67)
     i)     the sum of EUR 448 947,78
     ii)    interest on the said sum as at 31 July 2003 in the                               (Language of the case: German)
            amount of £ 98 121,24 plus interest from 1 August
            2003 until the date of judgment
     iii)   compensation for material damage, loss of profits
            and non-material damage in an amount of
                                                                           An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
            £ 1 532 931,09;                                                Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
                                                                           Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
—    order the Commission to pay the costs of the present                  29 September 2003 by Deutsche Post EURO EXPRESS GmbH,
     proceedings.                                                          represented by Gabriele Lindhofer.


title: Case T-769/15: Action brought on 29 December 2015 — SeNaPro v OHIM — Paltentaler Splitt & Marmorwerke (Dolokorn)

text:
               29.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 78/30

         Action brought on 29 December 2015 — SeNaPro v OHIM — Paltentaler Splitt & Marmorwerke (Dolokorn)
   (Case T-769/15)
   (2016/C 078/41)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: SeNaPro GmbH (Pommelsbrunn, Germany) (represented by: A. Schröder, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Paltentaler Splitt & Marmorwerke GmbH (Rottenmann, Austria)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘Dolokorn’ — Application No 11 877 181

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2015 in Case R 2643/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay its own costs and those incurred by SeNaPro GmbH.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 75 and Article 76(1) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.